All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Sixties Fan]

Indeed, the Palestinians always rejected the Zionist's settler colonial project where they would be expelled or become an oppressed minority in their own country.

Wrong question. The question is why the Arab Palestinians always rejected and continue to reject a self-determining, self-governing State, conveniently delivered to them Jew-free.

When was that?

They've been rejecting it continuously since the 1930s.

They have always rejected giving most of their country to colonial settlers in the guise of getting "a state."

Their "country" is called the Arabian Peninsula.

That is the only "Country" they are EVER going to have any rights to.

By all means, continue to embrace the loser Jihadists. Just as they embraced the loser Nazis with the same end game in mind.

MURDER all the Jews on the planet.


"Winning" , ala Tinmore

 

[Hollie]

Indeed, the Palestinians always rejected the Zionist's settler colonial project where they would be expelled or become an oppressed minority in their own country.

Wrong question. The question is why the Arab Palestinians always rejected and continue to reject a self-determining, self-governing State, conveniently delivered to them Jew-free.

When was that?

They've been rejecting it continuously since the 1930s.

They have always rejected giving most of their country to colonial settlers in the guise of getting "a state."

To keep referring to Arabs-Moslems in some nameless country that you cannot identify.

What country?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, the Palestinians always rejected the Zionist's settler colonial project where they would be expelled or become an oppressed minority in their own country.

Wrong question. The question is why the Arab Palestinians always rejected and continue to reject a self-determining, self-governing State, conveniently delivered to them Jew-free.

When was that?

They've been rejecting it continuously since the 1930s.

They have always rejected giving most of their country to colonial settlers in the guise of getting "a state."

To keep referring to Arabs-Moslems in some nameless country that you cannot identify.

What country?

Link?

Which Arab Muslims?

 

[Hollie]

Wrong question. The question is why the Arab Palestinians always rejected and continue to reject a self-determining, self-governing State, conveniently delivered to them Jew-free.

When was that?

They've been rejecting it continuously since the 1930s.

They have always rejected giving most of their country to colonial settlers in the guise of getting "a state."

To keep referring to Arabs-Moslems in some nameless country that you cannot identify.

What country?

Link?

Which Arab Muslims?

Dont you think its foolish to make statements you cannot support and then to play childish games as a means to deflect such dishonesty?

Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, dirty?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
I don't know of a diplomatic-Political set of conditions that closely match the intentions of the Allied Powers that previously set the precedent.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll concede your point; not that it makes any difference in the real-world.

In threat the development of security countermeasures against such threats and actual attacks, an analysis of the factors into the hostile group’s existence

Indeed, the Palestinians always rejected the Zionist's settler colonial project where they would be expelled or become an oppressed minority in their own country.

What other people in the world would accept that?

Give me some names.

You always duck this question.

(COMMENT)
I'm not ducking the question, because I don't know of any situation that matches the political conditions of post-WWI. But even if the answer is in your favor, the fact of the matter is → it is almost entirely irrelevant. The 1948 War between the parties to the conflict fought the war and the dispute was settled. Again, in 1967, the War was fought and the dispute was settled.

Whether you think it is fair or not is irrelevant.

Again, I'm not ducking the question. Israel did not enter into any of the conflicts (1948, 1967, 1973) with the Arab Palestinians as a party to the conflict. It was not in their power to effect the outcome of the conflicts and Treaties or Agreements that followed, That would be especially true in the case of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. In fact, all the decisive conflicts were fought well before the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence and the creation of that "entity." In 1998 (pursuant to Resolution 43/177), "Palestine," for international purposes, became the replacement designation for the organization known as "Palestine Liberation Organization" (sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - LAS Rabat Summit) at the United Nations. That is to say that the PLO as an organization is no longer the sole representative.

The international and regional conditions are so far past your question on the proportionality of the former territory subject to the Mandate, that it serves no useful purpose → none → no matter what the answer is. The dialog is irrelevant.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Again, I'm not ducking the question. Israel did not enter into any of the conflicts (1948, 1967, 1973) with the Arab Palestinians as a party to the conflict.

Then how can they lose anything if they were not a party of the conflict.

Nice duck, however.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

THAT is exactly the point.

Again, I'm not ducking the question. Israel did not enter into any of the conflicts (1948, 1967, 1973) with the Arab Palestinians as a party to the conflict.

Then how can they lose anything if they were not a party to the conflict.

Nice duck, however.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians did NOT LOSE ANYTHING because it was never theirs in the first place.

The raises the question, in your reference plane, What are the Arab Palestinians complaining about? Are the conflict and asymmetric warfare with Israel even legitimate?

✪⇒ IF the Arab Palestinians lost nothing (territory in this case) to the Israelis → THEN the Israeli took nothing (territory in this case) from the Arab Palestinians.

I concede your point. What are the Arab Palestinians fighting over?

Has this terrain → known as occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), really become a safe haven and lair for Arab Palestinian asymmetric fighters?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians did NOT LOSE ANYTHING because it was never theirs in the first place.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

Do you have any proof of that?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PROOF? It was your question? I conceded your point and you're still not satisfied...

The Arab Palestinians did NOT LOSE ANYTHING because it was never theirs in the first place.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

Do you have any proof of that?

(QUESTION)

OK, I'm stumped. How do I prove the existence of the "nothing" (territory in this case)?

QUESTION: Where is the territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinians (allegedly taken by those nasty Israelis)?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PROOF? It was your question? I conceded your point and you're still not satisfied...

The Arab Palestinians did NOT LOSE ANYTHING because it was never theirs in the first place.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

Do you have any proof of that?

(QUESTION)

OK, I'm stumped. How do I prove the existence of the "nothing" (territory in this case)?

QUESTION: Where is the territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinians (allegedly taken by those nasty Israelis)?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why did you say something you can't prove? You had to see something someplace to get that opinion.

The Mandate did not have any territory.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PROOF? It was your question? I conceded your point and you're still not satisfied...

The Arab Palestinians did NOT LOSE ANYTHING because it was never theirs in the first place.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

Do you have any proof of that?

(QUESTION)

OK, I'm stumped. How do I prove the existence of the "nothing" (territory in this case)?

QUESTION: Where is the territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinians (allegedly taken by those nasty Israelis)?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why did you say something you can't prove? You had to see something someplace to get that opinion.

The Mandate did not have any territory.

Stop foolling yourself, because you are the only one being fooled.

The Ottomans and Germany lost WWI.
They lost territory which did not belong to them.
It was up to the Allies to do what they pleased with all of it.
They created 4 Mandates in the Middle East, instead of keeping it all to themselves.

If the Mandate for Palestine, aka, the recreation of the Jewish Nation ON Jewish Homeland was not valid, then neither were the other three mandates.

One cannot have three Mandates be valid, and the last one not be valid.

It has never been up to you to determine that.

It will never be up to you to determine the validity of ANY of the Mandates and what territory they applied to.

Rocco, we must know when to stop answering this fool, simply because he cannot accept a Jewish State.

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PROOF? It was your question? I conceded your point and you're still not satisfied...

The Arab Palestinians did NOT LOSE ANYTHING because it was never theirs in the first place.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

Do you have any proof of that?

(QUESTION)

OK, I'm stumped. How do I prove the existence of the "nothing" (territory in this case)?

QUESTION: Where is the territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinians (allegedly taken by those nasty Israelis)?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why did you say something you can't prove? You had to see something someplace to get that opinion.

The Mandate did not have any territory.

You’re forced to cut and paste a YouTube video in addition to your usual slogans.

You have been instructed throughout multiple threads that you’re slogans and YouTube videos simply don’t make an argument.

Everyone gets it: you simply can’t accept the historical record.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PROOF? It was your question? I conceded your point and you're still not satisfied...

The Arab Palestinians did NOT LOSE ANYTHING because it was never theirs in the first place.

Bullshit Israeli talking point.

Do you have any proof of that?

(QUESTION)

OK, I'm stumped. How do I prove the existence of the "nothing" (territory in this case)?

QUESTION: Where is the territory formerly under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinians (allegedly taken by those nasty Israelis)?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why did you say something you can't prove? You had to see something someplace to get that opinion.

The Mandate did not have any territory.

Stop foolling yourself, because you are the only one being fooled.

The Ottomans and Germany lost WWI.
They lost territory which did not belong to them.
It was up to the Allies to do what they pleased with all of it.
They created 4 Mandates in the Middle East, instead of keeping it all to themselves.

If the Mandate for Palestine, aka, the recreation of the Jewish Nation ON Jewish Homeland was not valid, then neither were the other three mandates.

One cannot have three Mandates be valid, and the last one not be valid.

It has never been up to you to determine that.

It will never be up to you to determine the validity of ANY of the Mandates and what territory they applied to.

Rocco, we must know when to stop answering this fool, simply because he cannot accept a Jewish State.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is so foolish for you to even say.

Why did you say something you can't prove? You had to see something someplace to get that opinion.

The Mandate did not have any territory.

(COMMENT)

As for the Mandate. No one considers the Mandate to be a territory. The territory was under the authority of the Allied Powers through Part I (Territories) Article 16. The "Mandate" was the directive, agreed upon by the Allied Powers, on the Management of the Territory. Specifically, the Order in Council assigned the definition on the territory to which the Mandate applied as (short title) "Palestine."

But again, you are actually dabbling here in a case of misdirection.

As far as "You had to see something someplace" → it is exactly the opposite. I see no evidence that the Arab Palestinian had sovereignty over any territory. I just see the false application of evidence.

• The nationality granted as "Palestinian" was under the Government of Palestine (British Mandate).
• The attempt to imply that the Government of Palestine (British) somehow implied Arab Palestinian sovereignty.
• That the artifical territorial limits and boundary of the territory, as agreed upon by the Allied Powers, somehow implied a perminent and everlasting international boundary, which it did not. It was a separation between the other Mandates (French), Persia (Iran), Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.​

Working so hard to prove, using the masturbation, manipulation, and reinterpretation of facts only goes to demonstrate that there is something seriously wrong with the pro-Palestinian presentation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

• The nationality granted as "Palestinian" was under the Government of Palestine (British Mandate).

The Palestinians already had Palestinian citizenship by international law. That status was merely affirmed by the Palestinian Citizenship Order. The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by international and domestic law.

It is their territory.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by international and domestic law.

No one is disputing that. No one is disputing that Palestinians have a right to that land. We all agree. There is no call to turn that land over to Jordan or Syria or Lebanon or Egypt or Iraq. The territory absolutely belongs to the Palestinians. No one is disputing that.

The argument is over whether that territory can or can not be divided into two territories based on two distinct peoples who have valid historical claims to that territory. The argument that you are trying to make is NOT that the Arab Palestinians have a right to part of that land. No one disputes that. The argument you are trying to make is that one of the two peoples haa no right to that territory and that it can not be divided. And that is a foolish argument.

 

[Hollie]

It’s really remarkable how much time and energy is spent by pious Arabs-Moslems in pursuit of their Jew hating. But then, It's really just a continuation of the 1,400 year old hatreds that were imbued when a desert Arab warlord unleashed his hateful ideology on mankind.



IDF DESTROYS TERROR TUNNEL IN LATEST AIR STRIKE
https://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-destroys-terror-tunnel-in-latest-air-strike-556222

2 minute read.
By ANNA AHRONHEIM

 

[MJB12741]

• The nationality granted as "Palestinian" was under the Government of Palestine (British Mandate).

The Palestinians already had Palestinian citizenship by international law. That status was merely affirmed by the Palestinian Citizenship Order. The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by international and domestic law.

It is their territory.

So, will you be so kind to educate those Zionists by directing them to these "citizenship by international law" documents. 'Atta boy Tinmore.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Zionism before Herzl and the Jewish connection to the capital

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is almost too foolish to answer.

​

From 1918 - to - 1948, The international under which the citizenship was administered identified the Arab of the territory as a citizen of one phase of the Mandate Government in one Period or another.

• The nationality granted as "Palestinian" was under the Government of Palestine (British Mandate).

The Palestinians already had Palestinian citizenship by international law. That status was merely affirmed by the Palestinian Citizenship Order. The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine by international and domestic law.

It is their territory.

(COMMENT)

No matter how you want to reshape and reinterpret the law, citizenship - prior to 1948, was to a British Government administered entity under the direction of the Mandate (as approved by the Allied Powers).

The meaning of "citizens of Palestine by international and domestic law" is strictly subterfuge; meaningless language. Let there be no mistake. There was no independent sovereign Arab entity to which the Arabs, of the territory (West of the Jordan River) under which the Mandate applied, could make the claim of citizen. The Government of Palestine was an entity under the administration of the British Government. And the type and kind of identity documents made that clear.

To claim otherwise is disingenuous, misleading and dishonest.

Most Respectfully,
R