Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
montelatici, et al,
Oh this is funny.
(COMMENT)What would Prince Faisal, a Bedouin, have to do with Palestine. There were less Bedouins in Palestine than Jews at the time.
You are incorrigible. Herzl's plans are in writing in his autobiography.
The senior Arab Leader for the entire region, especially for the Arab Irregulars on the Allied side, was Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, King of the Hejaz. Prince Faisal was the King's son and dispatched to negotiate on the Kings behalf. When Prince Faisal entered Damascus, he was the most senior Arab Leader.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.I understand what you are trying to communicate: the "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous." That may or may not have been the intention.
It could not have happened any other way.
P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.I understand what you are trying to communicate: the "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous." That may or may not have been the intention.
It could not have happened any other way.
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.I understand what you are trying to communicate: the "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous." That may or may not have been the intention.
It could not have happened any other way.
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
R
Funny rant.P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.I understand what you are trying to communicate: the "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous." That may or may not have been the intention.
It could not have happened any other way.
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
RThe People Who Always Refuse a State
"A state" is a propaganda term. After all, a twenty year old rusted out Plymouth with no muffler and bad brakes is "a car."
Why should the Palestinians accept the remaining crumbs of their country? Why should the Palestinians be expected to give most of their country to foreign colonists?
P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.I understand what you are trying to communicate: the "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous." That may or may not have been the intention.
It could not have happened any other way.
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
RThe fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
And after 60 years of mass importation of foreign settlers and land purchase, the Zionists only purchased about 7% of Palestine* and were about 1/3 of the population.
*That was still Palestinian land. Land purchased in a country does not remove it from the country.
Seeing that their stupid plan was a failure, Britain left Palestine without creating their Jewish National Home.
The Zionists only option to create a Jewish majority state was to send their troops through Palestine attacking the civilian population and driving them out of their homes.
What you fail to understand is that it is the relative size of the investment vis-a-vis the state's GDP, not the total amount that China invests. A billion dollar Chines investment in Nicaragua is far more important than a billion dollar investment in South Africa.
Your fixation with the HDI is quaint but makes absolutely no difference when it comes to countries like Israel. As I said, prior to the return of rule to the native people, Rhodesia and South Africa had HDI indices higher than many European countries, on the par with Australia and New Zealand. That's because the HDI was based on the citizens who were overwhelmingly white and European, and the non-whites, at least most of them, were citizens of Bantustans, with abysmal HDI indices.
Why would anybody want to invest in any group that is led by a bunch of Islamist terrorists?P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, this is merely language to damaging to Israel's reputation. It is no where near the truth.
(COMMENT)Actually it is because they can mooch more money and weapons.
There are many, many things that Israel is doing that make positive contributions to the Region and the World at large.
We could go into trying to list all the Israeli contributions to humanity and those directly to the United States; but, the real question is why any regional nation (or even why any nation) would contribute anything to the Arab Palestinians?
Why would any country want to invest in the undeveloped Palestinians?
Most Respectfully,
RWhy would any country want to invest in the undeveloped Palestinians?
With Israeli bulldozers waiting in the wing.
You mean freedom fighters resisting Zionist terrorism.
No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.I understand what you are trying to communicate: the "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous." That may or may not have been the intention.
It could not have happened any other way.
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
RThe fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
And after 60 years of mass importation of foreign settlers and land purchase, the Zionists only purchased about 7% of Palestine* and were about 1/3 of the population.
*That was still Palestinian land. Land purchased in a country does not remove it from the country.
Seeing that their stupid plan was a failure, Britain left Palestine without creating their Jewish National Home.
The Zionists only option to create a Jewish majority state was to send their troops through Palestine attacking the civilian population and driving them out of their homes.
I was hoping you could define for us where this country of Pal'istan actually existed.
No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.I understand what you are trying to communicate: the "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous." That may or may not have been the intention.
It could not have happened any other way.
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
RThe fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
And after 60 years of mass importation of foreign settlers and land purchase, the Zionists only purchased about 7% of Palestine* and were about 1/3 of the population.
*That was still Palestinian land. Land purchased in a country does not remove it from the country.
Seeing that their stupid plan was a failure, Britain left Palestine without creating their Jewish National Home.
The Zionists only option to create a Jewish majority state was to send their troops through Palestine attacking the civilian population and driving them out of their homes.
I was hoping you could define for us where this country of Pal'istan actually existed.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.I understand what you are trying to communicate: the "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous." That may or may not have been the intention.
It could not have happened any other way.
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
RThe fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
And after 60 years of mass importation of foreign settlers and land purchase, the Zionists only purchased about 7% of Palestine* and were about 1/3 of the population.
*That was still Palestinian land. Land purchased in a country does not remove it from the country.
Seeing that their stupid plan was a failure, Britain left Palestine without creating their Jewish National Home.
The Zionists only option to create a Jewish majority state was to send their troops through Palestine attacking the civilian population and driving them out of their homes.
No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.I understand what you are trying to communicate: the "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous." That may or may not have been the intention.
It could not have happened any other way.
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
RThe fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
And after 60 years of mass importation of foreign settlers and land purchase, the Zionists only purchased about 7% of Palestine* and were about 1/3 of the population.
*That was still Palestinian land. Land purchased in a country does not remove it from the country.
Seeing that their stupid plan was a failure, Britain left Palestine without creating their Jewish National Home.
The Zionists only option to create a Jewish majority state was to send their troops through Palestine attacking the civilian population and driving them out of their homes.
I was hoping you could define for us where this country of Pal'istan actually existed.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
(COMMENT)No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)It had to be the intention. The only way to create a Jewish majority state in a country where Jews were in a minority was to eliminate the non Jews.
It could not have happened any other way.
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
RThe fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
And after 60 years of mass importation of foreign settlers and land purchase, the Zionists only purchased about 7% of Palestine* and were about 1/3 of the population.
*That was still Palestinian land. Land purchased in a country does not remove it from the country.
Seeing that their stupid plan was a failure, Britain left Palestine without creating their Jewish National Home.
The Zionists only option to create a Jewish majority state was to send their troops through Palestine attacking the civilian population and driving them out of their homes.
I was hoping you could define for us where this country of Pal'istan actually existed.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
Now, now. You know you have tried that fraud before. Cut and paste fraud doesn't fly.
"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.P F Tinmore, et al,
Well --- actually it appears that you are having trouble with the Map.
(COMMENT)No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
The Base Map comes from the Survey Report of Palestine in 1945. In 1945, the Palestine Order in Council still applied.
EXCERPT:
This Order may be cited as "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.
SOURCE: Palestine Order in Council 10 AUG 1922 Part I - - Paragraph 1.
In 1948, in a coordinated public release by the UN and the Mandatory, --- made it clear, that "Palestine" (territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies) was of a particular type.
You should notice that the Base Map (1946) was overlaid with the recommendations made by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (1947 Data).
"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."
SOURCE: UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT UN Press Release PAL/138 27 February 1948
The international boundaries were a product of the Allied Powers; set by a number of different authorities. But they do not confer any special status or change to the Mandate citizenship of the indigenous population or the nature of the Administration.
I'm not sure of what you think you see on the map. Maps generally draw their name from the most prominent feature in the center of the Map. The center of UN Map 82 & 103 Series is the Region of Palestine.
Most Respectfully,
R
Your most compelling cut and paste.No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.P F Tinmore, et al,
I tend to think this is an error in reasoning that stems from a poor logical form. It suggests that there exits one way and one way only, to create mechanisms that would prevent Arab tyranny of the majority; thereby saving, protecting and preserving the Jewish Culture from domination and subjugation under the typical governments with Muslim majorities.
The question then becomes, is this "one way and one way only," this allegation of "ethnic cleansing" the only way to establish a "ethnically homogeneous" society?
(COMMENT)
Clearly the logic here is that the only way to create a majority of Jewish People in a population in which the Arabs represent the majority is to --- subtract members of the majority (ethnic cleansing). Obviously this is merely --- just one way to achieve the desired outcome.
(CLASSIC IF - THEN STATEMENT)
IF subtracting members of the Arab Community increases the proportional representation of a fixed Jewish Community, THEN adding more Jewish members to the population of fixed Arab members will increase the representation of the Jewish Community.
(COMMENT)
Your theory is invalid if it can be shown that there is at least one case where the "theory" fails to hold the predicted outcome. One example of an error is enough to prove the theory is invalid and not true. There are other potential actions, as well, that could be taken to create the desired effect.
The famous San Remo Convention (April 19–26, 1920), was convened to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic. There were several landmark decision made by the Allied Powers, to include the creation of a Jewish National Home in the territory designated under the Mandate for Palestine.
The King-Crane Commission (1919) said in section 5(3) of the Report:
However, time changes many things, and the relationship between the Jewish Immigrants and the non-Jewish inhabitants began to sour dramatically.
The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
During the period between WWI and WWII, most of the world did not care if the European Jews were given a National Home as a safe haven to retreat, or not. Several countries (including the US) refused to let escaping Jews from Europe (persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion) to enter. Whether we talk about the Jews escaping Germany in 1939 on the MS St. Louis, which were denied entry to Cuba, Canada, and the United States; OR, if we talk about the post-War SS President Warfield (AKA: Exodus), with Holocaust survivors, seized by the British Navy and returned them to Germany which attempted to exterminate them. It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, that the judgment of the Allied Powers at San Remo was correct. The Jewish are not likely to ever entrust their safety and security into the hands of the Allied Powers or any Arab League Nation in the future.
(A VIEW POINT)
Palestinian Arabs – The People Who Always Refuse a State
The Algemeiner FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Excerpt:
There are many peoples on this planet that would do anything for their independence, sovereignty, and a state of their own if it was offered to them. Just ask the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, and Chechens. “
Yet there is one singular group that continues to spurn offers of statehood, missing and wasting numerous opportunities, and blaming others for its “victimhood”- and then commits horrendous acts of terrorism and violence when offered almost all of what it wants. We are referring, of course, to the Palestinian Arabs – a people who, unlike the Kurds, do not have their own religion, language, or culture that’s different in essence from their Arab brethren in neighboring “Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Palestinian Arabs have answered every peace offer for their own “Palestinian” state with one unequivocal word, “no,” and then initiated a wave of hatred, violence, and terrorism. The reason? Because it would also mean recognition of and co-existence with a non-Arab people, the Jews.
Most Respectfully,
RThe fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
And after 60 years of mass importation of foreign settlers and land purchase, the Zionists only purchased about 7% of Palestine* and were about 1/3 of the population.
*That was still Palestinian land. Land purchased in a country does not remove it from the country.
Seeing that their stupid plan was a failure, Britain left Palestine without creating their Jewish National Home.
The Zionists only option to create a Jewish majority state was to send their troops through Palestine attacking the civilian population and driving them out of their homes.
I was hoping you could define for us where this country of Pal'istan actually existed.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
Now, now. You know you have tried that fraud before. Cut and paste fraud doesn't fly.
Government Black List. Hmmm…where did I hear state sponsored/government black lists before? Ah…that's right….totalitarian governments… Communists>>>Kulak List…….Nazis>>>>Jew List. Then a black list on top of the black list of those who oppose the Bill because they see the slippery slope what a Black List can lead to.The bill, SB 86, takes action against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, by requiring the State Board of Administration to 1. “identify all companies” actively boycotting Israel, through a Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List, and 2. “prohibit a state agency or local governmental entity from contracting for goods and services that exceed a specified amount” from any company that has been placed on the list.
Your most compelling cut and paste.No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
And after 60 years of mass importation of foreign settlers and land purchase, the Zionists only purchased about 7% of Palestine* and were about 1/3 of the population.
*That was still Palestinian land. Land purchased in a country does not remove it from the country.
Seeing that their stupid plan was a failure, Britain left Palestine without creating their Jewish National Home.
The Zionists only option to create a Jewish majority state was to send their troops through Palestine attacking the civilian population and driving them out of their homes.
I was hoping you could define for us where this country of Pal'istan actually existed.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
Now, now. You know you have tried that fraud before. Cut and paste fraud doesn't fly.
As it is obvious, the fraud you attempted to perpetrate - a mythical 'Pal'istanian' State, was a fraud.
Your most compelling cut and paste.No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.I was hoping you could define for us where this country of Pal'istan actually existed.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
Now, now. You know you have tried that fraud before. Cut and paste fraud doesn't fly.
As it is obvious, the fraud you attempted to perpetrate - a mythical 'Pal'istanian' State, was a fraud.Decisions of international and national tribunals
The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]
State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The only thing you have is out of Israel's bullshit playbook.
Indeed, you people always shovel Israeli shit without refuting the issues.Your most compelling cut and paste.No problem, but first you have to know how to read a map. You do know how to read a map, don't you. Look at the top of the map. It says Palestine. That is where they put the name of the country. Now look in the legend for the symbol for international boundaries. You do know what the legend is, don't you. Now find those international boundaries on the map.
See, that wasn't so hard was it?
Now, now. You know you have tried that fraud before. Cut and paste fraud doesn't fly.
As it is obvious, the fraud you attempted to perpetrate - a mythical 'Pal'istanian' State, was a fraud.Decisions of international and national tribunals
The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]
State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The only thing you have is out of Israel's bullshit playbook.
Sweetie. This has all been addressed for you multiple times across multiple threads.
You're free to selectively rewrite history, but nothing in your wiki cut and paste will retroactively make your mythical Pal'istan a state.
