A Few Facts About The Palestinians

[Boston1]

It is funny (but not surprising) that one such as you would need BS sources like the UNHRC and Global Research to "validate" his POV.

Your regurgitated talking points are such a joke.

Ad hominems are not valid rebuttals.

Despite his claim to some Jewish heritage, Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research website is rife with anti-Jewish conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial.

Give me 3 examples.

Give me none, proves you're full of shit!

As for the UN Gen Ass's HRC, it is the successor to the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). The name change was necessitated by the foul, anti-Semitic stench that persistently emanated from the CHR however the players, the culture and the agenda didn't begin to change until the US became actively involved.

Violating the human rights of Palestinian's, has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

The so-called "Falk Report" - the five HR "experts" quoted in the Reuter's article - was later recanted by Falk when all the facts became known to him.

He didn't recant his report. He said it would've had a different conclusion, if Israel had cooperated. He still stands behind the findings of the report. BTW, the other members of the commission, never changed their position and still maintain it today.

The restraints on Gaza are as necessary as they are legal and the same bleeding-heart (and goose-stepping) voices that scream "collective punishment" once did the same in the matter of Israel's security fence which has undoubtedly saved as many lives.

Israel's Iron Curtain has been ruled illegal by the ICJ.

And collective punishment was outlawed, because that's what the Nazi's did to the Jews. Now, 70 years later, you're defending this disgusting policy. What size jack boot do you wear?

It is difficult for the Arabs to prosecute the war against the hated Joooo without heavy weapons and perhaps that is why you scream so loudly and consistently about Israel's ability to limit them.

Why would I hate Jews?

Odd that you should say

Quote
Ad hominems are not valid rebuttals.
End Quote.

Since you are the king of ad hominem attacks and seldom provide links or references to back up whatever assertions you are trying to make.

 

[Billo_Really]

LOL your funny.

Thats land Jordan LOST in an aggressive war against Israel. Why do you think that precious security council of yours adopted UNR242 under tittle VI instead of VII ?

How many times do you have to be told, you cannot lose land in a war. That has been illegal since the end of WWII. That's the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

242 backs up that law by telling Israel to get the fuck off that land it seized during that war.

 

[Billo_Really]

Odd that you should say

Quote
Ad hominems are not valid rebuttals.
End Quote.

Since you are the king of ad hominem attacks and seldom provide links or references to back up whatever assertions you are trying to make.

Name one.

 

[SAYIT]

The problem is, so much Zionist propaganda has been absorbed by most Americans, when the facts are presented and the sources are impeccable, cognitive dissonance sets in. The zealots are those that continue repeating propaganda that has been proven to be false...
...The non-Jews of Palestine are not going away and Israel's decision to not allow the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state when they had the chance The Swiss cheese offer with the equivalent of Crusader castles manned by the IDF which had control within the proposed state made any the offer DOA.

The irony of one such as you whining about propaganda and cognitive dissonance is massive and obvious but clearly you can't see it.

I'm not surprised.

You conveniently forget that not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposed partition in 1947 that could have established a Pal State, they continued to reject statehood in any of the following 20 years (until June, 1967) in which they had the unfettered opportunity to create a Pal State - without Israeli involvement - on all or any of the land they controlled (including all of Jerusalem).

Needless to say, those hapless "refugees" consistently eschewed their chance at statehood for the honor of life in squalid "refugee" camps and of tossing generation after generation of their kids into the fire just to satisfy the Jihadists among them and the global Nazi types for whom those "refugees" are the front line of their war against the hated Joooo.

The cognitive dissonance of the Zionist supporters is truly extraordinary.

In 1947 they believe, that the non-Jews should have passively accepted that nearly half of their population would be placed under foreign (European) colonial rule forever. in a state that would never be a state for Christians and Muslims. What native people have (or would have) ever accepted such an arrangement?

The Palestinians tried to establish a Palestinian state from 1947-1967. Jordan refused to recognize the All-Palestine Government that intended to establish the Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem...

So you admit Jordan rejected the All Palestine Gov't but blame the Jooos anyway. Interesting.

It must be noted that the APG's first resolutions were a declaration of independence and a claim of jurisdiction over the whole of Palestine (to include the nascent State of Israel), with Jerusalem as its capital.

The new government had no administration, civil service, money, or army and no international support or acceptance.

It simply adopted the Flag of the Arab Revolt in hopes that the Holy War Army would rally to their declared aim of liberating all of Palestine.

The bottom line remains that the Arabs rejected their opportunity for an internationally recognized state and instead chose squalid "refugee" camps and rejectionism.

 

[Boston1]

LOL your funny.

Thats land Jordan LOST in an aggressive war against Israel. Why do you think that precious security council of yours adopted UNR242 under tittle VI instead of VII ?

How many times do you have to be told, you cannot lose land in a war. That has been illegal since the end of WWII. That's the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

242 backs up that law by telling Israel to get the fuck off that land it seized during that war.

Yup cognitive dissonance again. We've been over this. 242 was adopted under article VI in which case its a suggestion not a binding legal demand. Its a suggestion because it was determined that Israel was NOT THE AGGRESSOR. Israel was simply defending itself and is allowed to maintain that defensive posture.

Also under what presence did Jordan actually own the disputed territories that makes you think they can't lose that land in war ? The simple truth is they never owned it in the first place and its last legal standing was as a protectorate for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland. ;--) which is exactly what Israel is doing with it now.

Best of luck with that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually that WORKS in G.Britain. As homeowners have been routinely prosecuted for installing mesh glass or other defensive methods that MIGHT injure an intruder..

But that's another topic. The West Bank was NEVER UNoccupied in your lifetime. Jordan was the previous "occupier". And you see how "armed resistance" was not effective at all against Jordan. Clear as day. You WANT bloodshed and violence because you are not in the fight. The folks who need to decide WHEN to fight and WHAT to fight for should have learned by now that owning a "nation-state" takes more than throwing rocks and getting innocent Pali kids killed regularly for no reason at all. The "armed resistance" part comes AFTER you develop a nation-state plan and establish leadership. Doing it ass backwards is why the Palis have a long string of lost string of lost opportunities towards statehood.. That's the LARGEST Palestinian fact on the list..

Another "Palestinian Fact" is that they need to be more like Zionists. And less like an angry mob that is captured periodically by a new group of radicals. Because THEY are in diaspora now -- just like the Jews were. And they need to PROMOTE a set of nationalistic goals and find the leadership to get there.

That is land Israel seized in the '67 war. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is also land Israel has effectively controlled against the will of the indigenous residents. That's an occupation. And that's what is causing all the violence.

How would you like it if the Chinese came into your neighborhood and set up roadblocks and checkpoints that resulted in a 15 minute trip to the store, becomes a 2 hour sojourn, if your allowed to pass on that day?

Or your wife goes into labor and you're trying to get to the hospital, but they won't allow you to go through the checkpoint?

Are you telling me you wouldn't be pissed off? You'd just turn to your wife and say, "Sorry honey, they won't let us through. I guess you'll have to have the baby in the back seat? You're down with that? Aren't ya, dear?"

Of course Palestinian land is now occupied. It's BEEN occupied for centuries. Largely because of the values and choices that Palestinians have made not to organize, govern and provide for the infrastructure and prosperity of their "nation". And I've said that this is an occupation gone badly. In reality -- the experiment was done to UNOCCUPY the Gaza and develop self-rule there. An experiment that failed within 8 months because of OTHER choices the Palis made that broke the peace process.

I understand that pregnant Palis can suddenly discover that their choices to select radical leadership and condemn Israel's right to exist are inconvenient for them. When they NEED Israel and her values -- they may not be available to them. And a bombed out hospital may be all they have left. That IS truely SAD... But necessary given the state of conflict..

If they want free access to what Israel can provide for them -- perhaps they should make different choices??

An occupation can NEVER END with a vacuum of power left in it's place. MOST occupations have focused on ENABLING governance, cooperation, rebuilding.. But it takes PARTNERS to end them that way..
And with you cheering on only futile resistance, suffering and dying -- you're not a huge help in that regard..

 

[Boston1]

Actually that WORKS in G.Britain. As homeowners have been routinely prosecuted for installing mesh glass or other defensive methods that MIGHT injure an intruder..

But that's another topic. The West Bank was NEVER UNoccupied in your lifetime. Jordan was the previous "occupier". And you see how "armed resistance" was not effective at all against Jordan. Clear as day. You WANT bloodshed and violence because you are not in the fight. The folks who need to decide WHEN to fight and WHAT to fight for should have learned by now that owning a "nation-state" takes more than throwing rocks and getting innocent Pali kids killed regularly for no reason at all. The "armed resistance" part comes AFTER you develop a nation-state plan and establish leadership. Doing it ass backwards is why the Palis have a long string of lost string of lost opportunities towards statehood.. That's the LARGEST Palestinian fact on the list..

Another "Palestinian Fact" is that they need to be more like Zionists. And less like an angry mob that is captured periodically by a new group of radicals. Because THEY are in diaspora now -- just like the Jews were. And they need to PROMOTE a set of nationalistic goals and find the leadership to get there.

That is land Israel seized in the '67 war. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is also land Israel has effectively controlled against the will of the indigenous residents. That's an occupation. And that's what is causing all the violence.

How would you like it if the Chinese came into your neighborhood and set up roadblocks and checkpoints that resulted in a 15 minute trip to the store, becomes a 2 hour sojourn, if your allowed to pass on that day?

Or your wife goes into labor and you're trying to get to the hospital, but they won't allow you to go through the checkpoint?

Are you telling me you wouldn't be pissed off? You'd just turn to your wife and say, "Sorry honey, they won't let us through. I guess you'll have to have the baby in the back seat? You're down with that? Aren't ya, dear?"

Of course Palestinian land is now occupied. It's BEEN occupied for centuries. Largely because of the values and choices that Palestinians have made not to organize, govern and provide for the infrastructure and prosperity of their "nation". And I've said that this is an occupation gone badly. In reality -- the experiment was done to UNOCCUPY the Gaza and develop self-rule there. An experiment that failed within 8 months because of OTHER choices the Palis made that broke the peace process.

I understand that pregnant Palis can suddenly discover that their choices to select radical leadership and condemn Israel's right to exist are inconvenient for them. When they NEED Israel and her values -- they may not be available to them. And a bombed out hospital may be all they have left. That IS truely SAD... But necessary given the state of conflict..

If they want free access to what Israel can provide for them -- perhaps they should make different choices??

An occupation can NEVER END with a vacuum of power left in it's place. MOST occupations have focused on ENABLING governance, cooperation, rebuilding.. But it takes PARTNERS to end them that way..
And with you cheering on only futile resistance, suffering and dying -- you're not a huge help in that regard..

I'd agree on the occupied thing right up until the mandate years. It was occupied by the allied powers and turned over to the British for administration. But at the time the mandate expired it was relinquished to the powers that be. In which case Jordan took control of the area in what might be termed an occupation, since the last legally agreed upon use of the land was for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and since the Jordanians had their legal borders defined within a treaty they broke by attacking the other 25% of the mandated area in an act of aggression. However. When Israel finally got ahold of it, and its last legally binding condition was that it was to be set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland. Its not an occupation. Its a realization of the original goal of the allied powers.

When you consider the entire mandate area and that the palestinian Arabs already received 80% or so of it, then it becomes a little hard to so justify further splitting the 20% remaining for the Judaic people to establish a national Jewish homeland.

I would contend that there is no occupation by Israel and that the land is being used as intended as described in its last binding legal treaty.

I think of it this way. If I was buying a car and the guy who wanted to sell it to me didn't have the tittle. I'd find out who did and buy it from them. Same with this situation. The palestinians have no tittle to that land and therefor don't own it. Never did actually as you pointed out.

The Israeli's are simply doing what was intended for that land in the last legally binding international instrument. The British mandate

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually that WORKS in G.Britain. As homeowners have been routinely prosecuted for installing mesh glass or other defensive methods that MIGHT injure an intruder..

But that's another topic. The West Bank was NEVER UNoccupied in your lifetime. Jordan was the previous "occupier". And you see how "armed resistance" was not effective at all against Jordan. Clear as day. You WANT bloodshed and violence because you are not in the fight. The folks who need to decide WHEN to fight and WHAT to fight for should have learned by now that owning a "nation-state" takes more than throwing rocks and getting innocent Pali kids killed regularly for no reason at all. The "armed resistance" part comes AFTER you develop a nation-state plan and establish leadership. Doing it ass backwards is why the Palis have a long string of lost string of lost opportunities towards statehood.. That's the LARGEST Palestinian fact on the list..

Another "Palestinian Fact" is that they need to be more like Zionists. And less like an angry mob that is captured periodically by a new group of radicals. Because THEY are in diaspora now -- just like the Jews were. And they need to PROMOTE a set of nationalistic goals and find the leadership to get there.

That is land Israel seized in the '67 war. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is also land Israel has effectively controlled against the will of the indigenous residents. That's an occupation. And that's what is causing all the violence.

How would you like it if the Chinese came into your neighborhood and set up roadblocks and checkpoints that resulted in a 15 minute trip to the store, becomes a 2 hour sojourn, if your allowed to pass on that day?

Or your wife goes into labor and you're trying to get to the hospital, but they won't allow you to go through the checkpoint?

Are you telling me you wouldn't be pissed off? You'd just turn to your wife and say, "Sorry honey, they won't let us through. I guess you'll have to have the baby in the back seat? You're down with that? Aren't ya, dear?"

Of course Palestinian land is now occupied. It's BEEN occupied for centuries. Largely because of the values and choices that Palestinians have made not to organize, govern and provide for the infrastructure and prosperity of their "nation". And I've said that this is an occupation gone badly. In reality -- the experiment was done to UNOCCUPY the Gaza and develop self-rule there. An experiment that failed within 8 months because of OTHER choices the Palis made that broke the peace process.

I understand that pregnant Palis can suddenly discover that their choices to select radical leadership and condemn Israel's right to exist are inconvenient for them. When they NEED Israel and her values -- they may not be available to them. And a bombed out hospital may be all they have left. That IS truely SAD... But necessary given the state of conflict..

If they want free access to what Israel can provide for them -- perhaps they should make different choices??

An occupation can NEVER END with a vacuum of power left in it's place. MOST occupations have focused on ENABLING governance, cooperation, rebuilding.. But it takes PARTNERS to end them that way..
And with you cheering on only futile resistance, suffering and dying -- you're not a huge help in that regard..

I'd agree on the occupied thing right up until the mandate years. It was occupied by the allied powers and turned over to the British for administration. But at the time the mandate expired it was relinquished to the powers that be. In which case Jordan took control of the area in what might be termed an occupation, since the last legally agreed upon use of the land was for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and since the Jordanians had their legal borders defined within a treaty they broke by attacking the other 25% of the mandated area in an act of aggression. However. When Israel finally got ahold of it, and its last legally binding condition was that it was to be set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland. Its not an occupation. Its a realization of the original goal of the allied powers.

When you consider the entire mandate area and that the palestinian Arabs already received 80% or so of it, then it becomes a little hard to so justify further splitting the 20% remaining for the Judaic people to establish a national Jewish homeland.

I would contend that there is no occupation by Israel and that the land is being used as intended as described in its last binding legal treaty.

I think of it this way. If I was buying a car and the guy who wanted to sell it to me didn't have the tittle. I'd find out who did and buy it from them. Same with this situation. The palestinians have no tittle to that land and therefor don't own it. Never did actually as you pointed out.

The Israeli's are simply doing what was intended for that land in the last legally binding international instrument. The British mandate

Actually Tel Aviv and other major Israeli cities were properly bought from titled Palestinians who had decided to leave. They were not pressured to sell -- but WILLINGLY gave up title. There are many maps showing the original purchases and the deeds transferred.

And actually Israel took no land from the Palestinians during the wars. They took it from Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. The original Mandate is often misquoted since it WAS vague about "palestinian land". But what is NOT VAGUE is the latter determinations from the Mandate Admins that (as you say) the MAJORITY of the lands under the control of the Mandate were to be "Jew -free".. SPECIFICALLY forbidding the use of that land as a part of the Jewish Homeland.

Best opportunity for a Palestinian "colonial project" was when the West Bank and Gaza were under ARAB administration. Another Pali choice that got squandered along the way..

 

[Boston1]

Yeah I've tried to point out a number of times that the Zionists were peacefully buying land a few times. Doesn't seem to go ver real well with the pro palestinians.

Which is weird because you'd think that anything done peacefully would make them happy. I have to wonder what the motivating force is behind some of the rhetoric. Isn't peace the end goal ? or is it peace with no Jews around that is the goal ? How about peace without discrimination ?

Anyway I'm sure their were land owners who had tittles and I'm sure those tittles are valid regardless of race but as for nationality thats what was up for grabs, and exactly as you've said the palistinians simply never made any effort at nation building.

So the question becomes, why now ?

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah I've tried to point out a number of times that the Zionists were peacefully buying land a few times. Doesn't seem to go ver real well with the pro palestinians.

Which is weird because you'd think that anything done peacefully would make them happy. I have to wonder what the motivating force is behind some of the rhetoric. Isn't peace the end goal ? or is it peace with no Jews around that is the goal ? How about peace without discrimination ?

Anyway I'm sure their were land owners who had tittles and I'm sure those tittles are valid regardless of race but as for nationality thats what was up for grabs, and exactly as you've said the palistinians simply never made any effort at nation building.

So the question becomes, why now ?

I think it's because of the different legal and moral structure in the "lesser developed" (not meant to be derogatory) muslim societies. There were a lot of "agreements" on land use and what we would call "leases or easements" between the "titled owners" and other parties. So Gramps actually holds the title -- but grandson-in-law has "common law" right to grow olives and his prayer buddy has perennial access to the water well and to pitch a tent -- kinda deal. A much more laid back and non-secular understanding of property. And yet ANOTHER "fact about Palestinians" that has contributed to their inability to comprehend and cope with the "modern" ways of nations..

 

[montelatici]

Actually that WORKS in G.Britain. As homeowners have been routinely prosecuted for installing mesh glass or other defensive methods that MIGHT injure an intruder..

But that's another topic. The West Bank was NEVER UNoccupied in your lifetime. Jordan was the previous "occupier". And you see how "armed resistance" was not effective at all against Jordan. Clear as day. You WANT bloodshed and violence because you are not in the fight. The folks who need to decide WHEN to fight and WHAT to fight for should have learned by now that owning a "nation-state" takes more than throwing rocks and getting innocent Pali kids killed regularly for no reason at all. The "armed resistance" part comes AFTER you develop a nation-state plan and establish leadership. Doing it ass backwards is why the Palis have a long string of lost string of lost opportunities towards statehood.. That's the LARGEST Palestinian fact on the list..

Another "Palestinian Fact" is that they need to be more like Zionists. And less like an angry mob that is captured periodically by a new group of radicals. Because THEY are in diaspora now -- just like the Jews were. And they need to PROMOTE a set of nationalistic goals and find the leadership to get there.

That is land Israel seized in the '67 war. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is also land Israel has effectively controlled against the will of the indigenous residents. That's an occupation. And that's what is causing all the violence.

How would you like it if the Chinese came into your neighborhood and set up roadblocks and checkpoints that resulted in a 15 minute trip to the store, becomes a 2 hour sojourn, if your allowed to pass on that day?

Or your wife goes into labor and you're trying to get to the hospital, but they won't allow you to go through the checkpoint?

Are you telling me you wouldn't be pissed off? You'd just turn to your wife and say, "Sorry honey, they won't let us through. I guess you'll have to have the baby in the back seat? You're down with that? Aren't ya, dear?"

Of course Palestinian land is now occupied. It's BEEN occupied for centuries. Largely because of the values and choices that Palestinians have made not to organize, govern and provide for the infrastructure and prosperity of their "nation". And I've said that this is an occupation gone badly. In reality -- the experiment was done to UNOCCUPY the Gaza and develop self-rule there. An experiment that failed within 8 months because of OTHER choices the Palis made that broke the peace process.

I understand that pregnant Palis can suddenly discover that their choices to select radical leadership and condemn Israel's right to exist are inconvenient for them. When they NEED Israel and her values -- they may not be available to them. And a bombed out hospital may be all they have left. That IS truely SAD... But necessary given the state of conflict..

If they want free access to what Israel can provide for them -- perhaps they should make different choices??

An occupation can NEVER END with a vacuum of power left in it's place. MOST occupations have focused on ENABLING governance, cooperation, rebuilding.. But it takes PARTNERS to end them that way..
And with you cheering on only futile resistance, suffering and dying -- you're not a huge help in that regard..

I'd agree on the occupied thing right up until the mandate years. It was occupied by the allied powers and turned over to the British for administration. But at the time the mandate expired it was relinquished to the powers that be. In which case Jordan took control of the area in what might be termed an occupation, since the last legally agreed upon use of the land was for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and since the Jordanians had their legal borders defined within a treaty they broke by attacking the other 25% of the mandated area in an act of aggression. However. When Israel finally got ahold of it, and its last legally binding condition was that it was to be set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland. Its not an occupation. Its a realization of the original goal of the allied powers.

When you consider the entire mandate area and that the palestinian Arabs already received 80% or so of it, then it becomes a little hard to so justify further splitting the 20% remaining for the Judaic people to establish a national Jewish homeland.

I would contend that there is no occupation by Israel and that the land is being used as intended as described in its last binding legal treaty.

I think of it this way. If I was buying a car and the guy who wanted to sell it to me didn't have the tittle. I'd find out who did and buy it from them. Same with this situation. The palestinians have no tittle to that land and therefor don't own it. Never did actually as you pointed out.

The Israeli's are simply doing what was intended for that land in the last legally binding international instrument. The British mandate

Actually Tel Aviv and other major Israeli cities were properly bought from titled Palestinians who had decided to leave. They were not pressured to sell -- but WILLINGLY gave up title. There are many maps showing the original purchases and the deeds transferred.

And actually Israel took no land from the Palestinians during the wars. They took it from Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. The original Mandate is often misquoted since it WAS vague about "palestinian land". But what is NOT VAGUE is the latter determinations from the Mandate Admins that (as you say) the MAJORITY of the lands under the control of the Mandate were to be "Jew -free".. SPECIFICALLY forbidding the use of that land as a part of the Jewish Homeland.

Best opportunity for a Palestinian "colonial project" was when the West Bank and Gaza were under ARAB administration. Another Pali choice that got squandered along the way..

1. Claiming that land allotted to the Hashemites (from the Hejaz region of Arabia) was somehow for the benefit of the native Palestinians is an absurdity.

2. UN maps such as the one below from 1945 demonstrate that Jews owned very little of the land in the Haifa district (where Tel Aviv was established) or in Palestine in general. Less than 5% as a matter of fact.

3. To claim that Israel was not the result of a Zionist colonial project is ridiculous, given the facts. The Zionists themselves declared that they were embarking on a colonial project as early as 1899:

And this was reiterated in 1926 as reported in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article below:

"Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ
July 25, 1926

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said.

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

 

[Boston1]

Yeah we've seen a lot of that in the First Peoples of the America's. Its not always easy to jump into a new way of doing things but its essential if you want to play the game.

Things change, life moves on. No reason to whine or complain is what I tell my fellow native americans, get over it and live, be strong, succeed. Embrace the new age.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually that WORKS in G.Britain. As homeowners have been routinely prosecuted for installing mesh glass or other defensive methods that MIGHT injure an intruder..

But that's another topic. The West Bank was NEVER UNoccupied in your lifetime. Jordan was the previous "occupier". And you see how "armed resistance" was not effective at all against Jordan. Clear as day. You WANT bloodshed and violence because you are not in the fight. The folks who need to decide WHEN to fight and WHAT to fight for should have learned by now that owning a "nation-state" takes more than throwing rocks and getting innocent Pali kids killed regularly for no reason at all. The "armed resistance" part comes AFTER you develop a nation-state plan and establish leadership. Doing it ass backwards is why the Palis have a long string of lost string of lost opportunities towards statehood.. That's the LARGEST Palestinian fact on the list..

Another "Palestinian Fact" is that they need to be more like Zionists. And less like an angry mob that is captured periodically by a new group of radicals. Because THEY are in diaspora now -- just like the Jews were. And they need to PROMOTE a set of nationalistic goals and find the leadership to get there.

That is land Israel seized in the '67 war. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is also land Israel has effectively controlled against the will of the indigenous residents. That's an occupation. And that's what is causing all the violence.

How would you like it if the Chinese came into your neighborhood and set up roadblocks and checkpoints that resulted in a 15 minute trip to the store, becomes a 2 hour sojourn, if your allowed to pass on that day?

Or your wife goes into labor and you're trying to get to the hospital, but they won't allow you to go through the checkpoint?

Are you telling me you wouldn't be pissed off? You'd just turn to your wife and say, "Sorry honey, they won't let us through. I guess you'll have to have the baby in the back seat? You're down with that? Aren't ya, dear?"

Of course Palestinian land is now occupied. It's BEEN occupied for centuries. Largely because of the values and choices that Palestinians have made not to organize, govern and provide for the infrastructure and prosperity of their "nation". And I've said that this is an occupation gone badly. In reality -- the experiment was done to UNOCCUPY the Gaza and develop self-rule there. An experiment that failed within 8 months because of OTHER choices the Palis made that broke the peace process.

I understand that pregnant Palis can suddenly discover that their choices to select radical leadership and condemn Israel's right to exist are inconvenient for them. When they NEED Israel and her values -- they may not be available to them. And a bombed out hospital may be all they have left. That IS truely SAD... But necessary given the state of conflict..

If they want free access to what Israel can provide for them -- perhaps they should make different choices??

An occupation can NEVER END with a vacuum of power left in it's place. MOST occupations have focused on ENABLING governance, cooperation, rebuilding.. But it takes PARTNERS to end them that way..
And with you cheering on only futile resistance, suffering and dying -- you're not a huge help in that regard..

I'd agree on the occupied thing right up until the mandate years. It was occupied by the allied powers and turned over to the British for administration. But at the time the mandate expired it was relinquished to the powers that be. In which case Jordan took control of the area in what might be termed an occupation, since the last legally agreed upon use of the land was for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and since the Jordanians had their legal borders defined within a treaty they broke by attacking the other 25% of the mandated area in an act of aggression. However. When Israel finally got ahold of it, and its last legally binding condition was that it was to be set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland. Its not an occupation. Its a realization of the original goal of the allied powers.

When you consider the entire mandate area and that the palestinian Arabs already received 80% or so of it, then it becomes a little hard to so justify further splitting the 20% remaining for the Judaic people to establish a national Jewish homeland.

I would contend that there is no occupation by Israel and that the land is being used as intended as described in its last binding legal treaty.

I think of it this way. If I was buying a car and the guy who wanted to sell it to me didn't have the tittle. I'd find out who did and buy it from them. Same with this situation. The palestinians have no tittle to that land and therefor don't own it. Never did actually as you pointed out.

The Israeli's are simply doing what was intended for that land in the last legally binding international instrument. The British mandate

Actually Tel Aviv and other major Israeli cities were properly bought from titled Palestinians who had decided to leave. They were not pressured to sell -- but WILLINGLY gave up title. There are many maps showing the original purchases and the deeds transferred.

And actually Israel took no land from the Palestinians during the wars. They took it from Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. The original Mandate is often misquoted since it WAS vague about "palestinian land". But what is NOT VAGUE is the latter determinations from the Mandate Admins that (as you say) the MAJORITY of the lands under the control of the Mandate were to be "Jew -free".. SPECIFICALLY forbidding the use of that land as a part of the Jewish Homeland.

Best opportunity for a Palestinian "colonial project" was when the West Bank and Gaza were under ARAB administration. Another Pali choice that got squandered along the way..

1. Claiming that land allotted to the Hashemites (from the Hejaz region of Arabia) was somehow for the benefit of the native Palestinians is an absurdity.

2. UN maps such as the one below from 1945 demonstrate that Jews owned very little of the land in the Haifa district (where Tel Aviv was established) or in Palestine in general. Less than 5% as a matter of fact.

3. To claim that Israel was not the result of a Zionist colonial project is ridiculous, given the facts. The Zionists themselves declared that they were embarking on a colonial project as early as 1899:


View attachment 58600

View attachment 58602

And this was reiterated in 1926 as reported in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article below:

"Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ
July 25, 1926

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said.

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

You love these snapshots in time that appear without a lot of explanation. Interesting but not persuasive in any way.. We could present a map of Manhattan today that shows CONSIDERABLE arab ownership -- without any explanation..

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah we've seen a lot of that in the First Peoples of the America's. Its not always easy to jump into a new way of doing things but its essential if you want to play the game.

Things change, life moves on. No reason to whine or complain is what I tell my fellow native americans, get over it and live, be strong, succeed. Embrace the new age.

They are working hard at winning back their land -- one roll of the dice at a time... THEY have a plan.. And they now understand "the system"..

 

[montelatici]

That is land Israel seized in the '67 war. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It is also land Israel has effectively controlled against the will of the indigenous residents. That's an occupation. And that's what is causing all the violence.

How would you like it if the Chinese came into your neighborhood and set up roadblocks and checkpoints that resulted in a 15 minute trip to the store, becomes a 2 hour sojourn, if your allowed to pass on that day?

Or your wife goes into labor and you're trying to get to the hospital, but they won't allow you to go through the checkpoint?

Are you telling me you wouldn't be pissed off? You'd just turn to your wife and say, "Sorry honey, they won't let us through. I guess you'll have to have the baby in the back seat? You're down with that? Aren't ya, dear?"

Of course Palestinian land is now occupied. It's BEEN occupied for centuries. Largely because of the values and choices that Palestinians have made not to organize, govern and provide for the infrastructure and prosperity of their "nation". And I've said that this is an occupation gone badly. In reality -- the experiment was done to UNOCCUPY the Gaza and develop self-rule there. An experiment that failed within 8 months because of OTHER choices the Palis made that broke the peace process.

I understand that pregnant Palis can suddenly discover that their choices to select radical leadership and condemn Israel's right to exist are inconvenient for them. When they NEED Israel and her values -- they may not be available to them. And a bombed out hospital may be all they have left. That IS truely SAD... But necessary given the state of conflict..

If they want free access to what Israel can provide for them -- perhaps they should make different choices??

An occupation can NEVER END with a vacuum of power left in it's place. MOST occupations have focused on ENABLING governance, cooperation, rebuilding.. But it takes PARTNERS to end them that way..
And with you cheering on only futile resistance, suffering and dying -- you're not a huge help in that regard..

I'd agree on the occupied thing right up until the mandate years. It was occupied by the allied powers and turned over to the British for administration. But at the time the mandate expired it was relinquished to the powers that be. In which case Jordan took control of the area in what might be termed an occupation, since the last legally agreed upon use of the land was for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and since the Jordanians had their legal borders defined within a treaty they broke by attacking the other 25% of the mandated area in an act of aggression. However. When Israel finally got ahold of it, and its last legally binding condition was that it was to be set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland. Its not an occupation. Its a realization of the original goal of the allied powers.

When you consider the entire mandate area and that the palestinian Arabs already received 80% or so of it, then it becomes a little hard to so justify further splitting the 20% remaining for the Judaic people to establish a national Jewish homeland.

I would contend that there is no occupation by Israel and that the land is being used as intended as described in its last binding legal treaty.

I think of it this way. If I was buying a car and the guy who wanted to sell it to me didn't have the tittle. I'd find out who did and buy it from them. Same with this situation. The palestinians have no tittle to that land and therefor don't own it. Never did actually as you pointed out.

The Israeli's are simply doing what was intended for that land in the last legally binding international instrument. The British mandate

Actually Tel Aviv and other major Israeli cities were properly bought from titled Palestinians who had decided to leave. They were not pressured to sell -- but WILLINGLY gave up title. There are many maps showing the original purchases and the deeds transferred.

And actually Israel took no land from the Palestinians during the wars. They took it from Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. The original Mandate is often misquoted since it WAS vague about "palestinian land". But what is NOT VAGUE is the latter determinations from the Mandate Admins that (as you say) the MAJORITY of the lands under the control of the Mandate were to be "Jew -free".. SPECIFICALLY forbidding the use of that land as a part of the Jewish Homeland.

Best opportunity for a Palestinian "colonial project" was when the West Bank and Gaza were under ARAB administration. Another Pali choice that got squandered along the way..

1. Claiming that land allotted to the Hashemites (from the Hejaz region of Arabia) was somehow for the benefit of the native Palestinians is an absurdity.

2. UN maps such as the one below from 1945 demonstrate that Jews owned very little of the land in the Haifa district (where Tel Aviv was established) or in Palestine in general. Less than 5% as a matter of fact.

3. To claim that Israel was not the result of a Zionist colonial project is ridiculous, given the facts. The Zionists themselves declared that they were embarking on a colonial project as early as 1899:


View attachment 58600

View attachment 58602

And this was reiterated in 1926 as reported in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article below:

"Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ
July 25, 1926

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said.

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

You love these snapshots in time that appear without a lot of explanation. Interesting but not persuasive in any way.. We could present a map of Manhattan today that shows CONSIDERABLE arab ownership -- without any explanation..

How much more of an explanation do you need. It's a color coded map of land ownership in 1945 prepared by the UN which demonstrates that the Jews owned very little land and the natives owned nearly all the land. An elementary school child with some math skills would not have a problem with it. Of course it's persuasive, it is the fact that you are afflicted with cognitive dissonance and thus can't fathom the fact that you have been accepting Zionist propaganda as fact all your life. When the facts are made clear, you cannot accept them.

 

[Shusha]

Individual land ownership, and the ethnic or cultural identity of the individual land owner, does not confer a national sovereignty.

 

[montelatici]

Individual land ownership, and the ethnic or cultural identity of the individual land owner, does not confer a national sovereignty.

You are right, according to the Covenant of the League of national sovereignty was to be conferred to the inhabitants, who were at the time of writing were more than 90% Christians and Muslim Palestinians. Jews were nearly all recent migrants from Europe. Though they owned more than 95% of the land, it was not a requirement that the native people own the land.

"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."

 

[Boston1]

Yeah we've seen a lot of that in the First Peoples of the America's. Its not always easy to jump into a new way of doing things but its essential if you want to play the game.

Things change, life moves on. No reason to whine or complain is what I tell my fellow native americans, get over it and live, be strong, succeed. Embrace the new age.

They are working hard at winning back their land -- one roll of the dice at a time... THEY have a plan.. And they now understand "the system"..

Yes and they have given up armed resistance. My own people fought to the bitter end and are one of the few who've maintained at least a segment of their original homeland. But that is unusual, and irrelevant. Today native tribes are doing better than they've done in a long time. Education is up, alcoholism is down. Average income is increasing, and yes, some tribes are taking advantage of their sovereign status in that they allow activities not generally allowed in the USA. And its all happening because the people realize we must play the game to survive.

If the palestinians want to be treated like respectable citizens, they are going to have to act like it. End the outrageous acts against innocent civilians, stop the random rocket fire, quit trying to run over pedestrians and start acting like adults.

A peaceful solution is the only solution

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course Palestinian land is now occupied. It's BEEN occupied for centuries. Largely because of the values and choices that Palestinians have made not to organize, govern and provide for the infrastructure and prosperity of their "nation". And I've said that this is an occupation gone badly. In reality -- the experiment was done to UNOCCUPY the Gaza and develop self-rule there. An experiment that failed within 8 months because of OTHER choices the Palis made that broke the peace process.

I understand that pregnant Palis can suddenly discover that their choices to select radical leadership and condemn Israel's right to exist are inconvenient for them. When they NEED Israel and her values -- they may not be available to them. And a bombed out hospital may be all they have left. That IS truely SAD... But necessary given the state of conflict..

If they want free access to what Israel can provide for them -- perhaps they should make different choices??

An occupation can NEVER END with a vacuum of power left in it's place. MOST occupations have focused on ENABLING governance, cooperation, rebuilding.. But it takes PARTNERS to end them that way..
And with you cheering on only futile resistance, suffering and dying -- you're not a huge help in that regard..

I'd agree on the occupied thing right up until the mandate years. It was occupied by the allied powers and turned over to the British for administration. But at the time the mandate expired it was relinquished to the powers that be. In which case Jordan took control of the area in what might be termed an occupation, since the last legally agreed upon use of the land was for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and since the Jordanians had their legal borders defined within a treaty they broke by attacking the other 25% of the mandated area in an act of aggression. However. When Israel finally got ahold of it, and its last legally binding condition was that it was to be set aside for the creation of a national Jewish homeland. Its not an occupation. Its a realization of the original goal of the allied powers.

When you consider the entire mandate area and that the palestinian Arabs already received 80% or so of it, then it becomes a little hard to so justify further splitting the 20% remaining for the Judaic people to establish a national Jewish homeland.

I would contend that there is no occupation by Israel and that the land is being used as intended as described in its last binding legal treaty.

I think of it this way. If I was buying a car and the guy who wanted to sell it to me didn't have the tittle. I'd find out who did and buy it from them. Same with this situation. The palestinians have no tittle to that land and therefor don't own it. Never did actually as you pointed out.

The Israeli's are simply doing what was intended for that land in the last legally binding international instrument. The British mandate

Actually Tel Aviv and other major Israeli cities were properly bought from titled Palestinians who had decided to leave. They were not pressured to sell -- but WILLINGLY gave up title. There are many maps showing the original purchases and the deeds transferred.

And actually Israel took no land from the Palestinians during the wars. They took it from Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. The original Mandate is often misquoted since it WAS vague about "palestinian land". But what is NOT VAGUE is the latter determinations from the Mandate Admins that (as you say) the MAJORITY of the lands under the control of the Mandate were to be "Jew -free".. SPECIFICALLY forbidding the use of that land as a part of the Jewish Homeland.

Best opportunity for a Palestinian "colonial project" was when the West Bank and Gaza were under ARAB administration. Another Pali choice that got squandered along the way..

1. Claiming that land allotted to the Hashemites (from the Hejaz region of Arabia) was somehow for the benefit of the native Palestinians is an absurdity.

2. UN maps such as the one below from 1945 demonstrate that Jews owned very little of the land in the Haifa district (where Tel Aviv was established) or in Palestine in general. Less than 5% as a matter of fact.

3. To claim that Israel was not the result of a Zionist colonial project is ridiculous, given the facts. The Zionists themselves declared that they were embarking on a colonial project as early as 1899:


View attachment 58600

View attachment 58602

And this was reiterated in 1926 as reported in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article below:

"Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ
July 25, 1926

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said.

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

You love these snapshots in time that appear without a lot of explanation. Interesting but not persuasive in any way.. We could present a map of Manhattan today that shows CONSIDERABLE arab ownership -- without any explanation..

How much more of an explanation do you need. It's a color coded map of land ownership in 1945 prepared by the UN which demonstrates that the Jews owned very little land and the natives owned nearly all the land. An elementary school child with some math skills would not have a problem with it. Of course it's persuasive, it is the fact that you are afflicted with cognitive dissonance and thus can't fathom the fact that you have been accepting Zionist propaganda as fact all your life. When the facts are made clear, you cannot accept them.

Obviously YOU don't understand the map since you just blurted out some crap about Hashemite land. The hills of the West Bank -- reserved by the Mandate was the traditional home for "Palestinians".. Jenin, Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron ?? If you STUDIED the map -- you'd know that was true.

Jews in 1945 were too busy trying to stay alive to be moving to the Holy Land.

 

[flacaltenn]

Individual land ownership, and the ethnic or cultural identity of the individual land owner, does not confer a national sovereignty.

You are right, according to the Covenant of the League of national sovereignty was to be conferred to the inhabitants, who were at the time of writing were more than 90% Christians and Muslim Palestinians. Jews were nearly all recent migrants from Europe. Though they owned more than 95% of the land, it was not a requirement that the native people own the land.

"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."

There it is.. The largest TRUTH about Palestine and Palestinians. Obvious even back then. There was not a chance to succeed at nationhood without an Administrator to organize and provide structure to "palestinian life".. And the situation has changed NOT A BIT -- since then..