Boycott Israel

[rylah]

Ok let's say that BDS becomes the official policy of many big countries.
What do You think is the next Israeli step?
What would the Jews in those countries realize?

French Jews already started moving in...

 

[Phoenall]

Typical left wing manipulation of the evidence, they never tell the other side of the story and how the arab muslims haveinvaded the Jewish national home and squatted illegally on the land. Stole water and let it run into the desert sand, stole electricity and blamed the Jews when they were killed doing so. Destroyed sewage works when they stole the steel pipes to use for illegal weapons, then claimed the Jews bombed them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Typical left wing manipulation of the evidence, they never tell the other side of the story and how the arab muslims haveinvaded the Jewish national home and squatted illegally on the land. Stole water and let it run into the desert sand, stole electricity and blamed the Jews when they were killed doing so. Destroyed sewage works when they stole the steel pipes to use for illegal weapons, then claimed the Jews bombed them.

I suppose you have proof for all that crap.

Of course not.

 

[Phoenall]

More proof than you have of there being a state of palestine prior to 1988.

And it is common knowledge that the arab muslims steal anything they can, which is why they are not trusted the world over.

 

[P F Tinmore]

More proof than you have of there being a state of palestine prior to 1988.

And it is common knowledge that the arab muslims steal anything they can, which is why they are not trusted the world over.

More crap.

Less proof.

 

[Phoenall]

More proof than you have of there being a state of palestine prior to 1988.

And it is common knowledge that the arab muslims steal anything they can, which is why they are not trusted the world over.

More crap.

Less proof.

FACTS easily proven when you look at the evidence, start with the name that was given to the Jews by the Romans 2000 years ago.


What proof do you have that there was ever a nation or state of palestine ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

More proof than you have of there being a state of palestine prior to 1988.

And it is common knowledge that the arab muslims steal anything they can, which is why they are not trusted the world over.

More crap.

Less proof.

FACTS easily proven when you look at the evidence, start with the name that was given to the Jews by the Romans 2000 years ago.


What proof do you have that there was ever a nation or state of palestine ?

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

 

[Phoenall]

More proof than you have of there being a state of palestine prior to 1988.

And it is common knowledge that the arab muslims steal anything they can, which is why they are not trusted the world over.

More crap.

Less proof.

FACTS easily proven when you look at the evidence, start with the name that was given to the Jews by the Romans 2000 years ago.


What proof do you have that there was ever a nation or state of palestine ?

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

And once again you use a definition of an actual wiki entry and not the wiki entry. You do know what the header means I take it, it means the different words and terms of an entry that has been edited. It is not the wiki entry.

This also says that the mandate of palestine is the successor and not the nation of palestine. I will ask again who was its leader, what was its currency and what was its capital. Who signed for its international treaties ?



LOSER

 

[P F Tinmore]

This also says that the mandate of palestine is the successor and not the nation of palestine.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit so I will make this as simple as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

If the British Mandate was Palestine.

And.

The British Mandate was charged with creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

Then why is it that when the Mandate left Palestine it handed the territory to the UNPC not the Zionists?

I will let you dance around that question.

 

[Phoenall]

This also says that the mandate of palestine is the successor and not the nation of palestine.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit so I will make this as simple as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

If the British Mandate was Palestine.

And.

The British Mandate was charged with creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

Then why is it that when the Mandate left Palestine it handed the territory to the UNPC not the Zionists?

I will let you dance around that question.

Britain was not palestine, it was an appointed mandatory to run the mandate of palestine amongst others.

Britain was not charged with creating a homeland for the Jews, that was the Jews themselves

Because the British wanted out and they did not have that authority, only the UN could do that


I will let you look up the facts and see if you can understand the reality. You are confusing yourself by reading far too many islamonazi propaganda reports that are as twisted as you are.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This also says that the mandate of palestine is the successor and not the nation of palestine.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit so I will make this as simple as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

If the British Mandate was Palestine.

And.

The British Mandate was charged with creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

Then why is it that when the Mandate left Palestine it handed the territory to the UNPC not the Zionists?

I will let you dance around that question.

Britain was not palestine, it was an appointed mandatory to run the mandate of palestine amongst others.

Britain was not charged with creating a homeland for the Jews, that was the Jews themselves

Because the British wanted out and they did not have that authority, only the UN could do that


I will let you look up the facts and see if you can understand the reality. You are confusing yourself by reading far too many islamonazi propaganda reports that are as twisted as you are.

The UN also lacked that authority.

 

[Phoenall]

This also says that the mandate of palestine is the successor and not the nation of palestine.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit so I will make this as simple as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

If the British Mandate was Palestine.

And.

The British Mandate was charged with creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

Then why is it that when the Mandate left Palestine it handed the territory to the UNPC not the Zionists?

I will let you dance around that question.

Britain was not palestine, it was an appointed mandatory to run the mandate of palestine amongst others.

Britain was not charged with creating a homeland for the Jews, that was the Jews themselves

Because the British wanted out and they did not have that authority, only the UN could do that


I will let you look up the facts and see if you can understand the reality. You are confusing yourself by reading far too many islamonazi propaganda reports that are as twisted as you are.

The UN also lacked that authority.

WRONG as successors to the LoN they did have the authority to act as they saw fit. In this case they appointed a UN body as the new mandatory until such time as the inhabitants could prove they could stand on their own

 

[P F Tinmore]

This also says that the mandate of palestine is the successor and not the nation of palestine.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit so I will make this as simple as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

If the British Mandate was Palestine.

And.

The British Mandate was charged with creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

Then why is it that when the Mandate left Palestine it handed the territory to the UNPC not the Zionists?

I will let you dance around that question.

Britain was not palestine, it was an appointed mandatory to run the mandate of palestine amongst others.

Britain was not charged with creating a homeland for the Jews, that was the Jews themselves

Because the British wanted out and they did not have that authority, only the UN could do that


I will let you look up the facts and see if you can understand the reality. You are confusing yourself by reading far too many islamonazi propaganda reports that are as twisted as you are.

The UN also lacked that authority.

WRONG as successors to the LoN they did have the authority to act as they saw fit. In this case they appointed a UN body as the new mandatory until such time as the inhabitants could prove they could stand on their own

That leads back to my unanswered question.

If they had that authority, why didn't they just hand the territory to the Zionists?

 

[Indeependent]

This also says that the mandate of palestine is the successor and not the nation of palestine.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit so I will make this as simple as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

If the British Mandate was Palestine.

And.

The British Mandate was charged with creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

Then why is it that when the Mandate left Palestine it handed the territory to the UNPC not the Zionists?

I will let you dance around that question.

Britain was not palestine, it was an appointed mandatory to run the mandate of palestine amongst others.

Britain was not charged with creating a homeland for the Jews, that was the Jews themselves

Because the British wanted out and they did not have that authority, only the UN could do that


I will let you look up the facts and see if you can understand the reality. You are confusing yourself by reading far too many islamonazi propaganda reports that are as twisted as you are.

The UN also lacked that authority.

WRONG as successors to the LoN they did have the authority to act as they saw fit. In this case they appointed a UN body as the new mandatory until such time as the inhabitants could prove they could stand on their own

That leads back to my unanswered question.

If they had that authority, why didn't they just hand the territory to the Zionists?

Another question...
How does it FEEL knowing your wet dream will NEVER come true?

 

[Phoenall]

This also says that the mandate of palestine is the successor and not the nation of palestine.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit so I will make this as simple as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

If the British Mandate was Palestine.

And.

The British Mandate was charged with creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

Then why is it that when the Mandate left Palestine it handed the territory to the UNPC not the Zionists?

I will let you dance around that question.

Britain was not palestine, it was an appointed mandatory to run the mandate of palestine amongst others.

Britain was not charged with creating a homeland for the Jews, that was the Jews themselves

Because the British wanted out and they did not have that authority, only the UN could do that


I will let you look up the facts and see if you can understand the reality. You are confusing yourself by reading far too many islamonazi propaganda reports that are as twisted as you are.

The UN also lacked that authority.

WRONG as successors to the LoN they did have the authority to act as they saw fit. In this case they appointed a UN body as the new mandatory until such time as the inhabitants could prove they could stand on their own

That leads back to my unanswered question.

If they had that authority, why didn't they just hand the territory to the Zionists?

Because the mandate and UN charter dont work like that, they had to declare their intentions and then prove they were able to carry them out. The Jews did this in 1949 by making international agreements for which their leader was held responsible for when he signed on the bottom line. The Jews showed they were capable of acting in a peaceful manner and so ticked all the boxes.


When did the arab muslims do the same ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit so I will make this as simple as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

If the British Mandate was Palestine.

And.

The British Mandate was charged with creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

Then why is it that when the Mandate left Palestine it handed the territory to the UNPC not the Zionists?

I will let you dance around that question.

Britain was not palestine, it was an appointed mandatory to run the mandate of palestine amongst others.

Britain was not charged with creating a homeland for the Jews, that was the Jews themselves

Because the British wanted out and they did not have that authority, only the UN could do that


I will let you look up the facts and see if you can understand the reality. You are confusing yourself by reading far too many islamonazi propaganda reports that are as twisted as you are.

The UN also lacked that authority.

WRONG as successors to the LoN they did have the authority to act as they saw fit. In this case they appointed a UN body as the new mandatory until such time as the inhabitants could prove they could stand on their own

That leads back to my unanswered question.

If they had that authority, why didn't they just hand the territory to the Zionists?

Because the mandate and UN charter dont work like that, they had to declare their intentions and then prove they were able to carry them out. The Jews did this in 1949 by making international agreements for which their leader was held responsible for when he signed on the bottom line. The Jews showed they were capable of acting in a peaceful manner and so ticked all the boxes.


When did the arab muslims do the same ?

That wasn't the process.

Unless you have a link that says that.

 

[Phoenall]

Britain was not palestine, it was an appointed mandatory to run the mandate of palestine amongst others.

Britain was not charged with creating a homeland for the Jews, that was the Jews themselves

Because the British wanted out and they did not have that authority, only the UN could do that


I will let you look up the facts and see if you can understand the reality. You are confusing yourself by reading far too many islamonazi propaganda reports that are as twisted as you are.

The UN also lacked that authority.

WRONG as successors to the LoN they did have the authority to act as they saw fit. In this case they appointed a UN body as the new mandatory until such time as the inhabitants could prove they could stand on their own

That leads back to my unanswered question.

If they had that authority, why didn't they just hand the territory to the Zionists?

Because the mandate and UN charter dont work like that, they had to declare their intentions and then prove they were able to carry them out. The Jews did this in 1949 by making international agreements for which their leader was held responsible for when he signed on the bottom line. The Jews showed they were capable of acting in a peaceful manner and so ticked all the boxes.


When did the arab muslims do the same ?

That wasn't the process.

Unless you have a link that says that.

The UN charter and the LoN mandate

 

[P F Tinmore]

The UN also lacked that authority.

WRONG as successors to the LoN they did have the authority to act as they saw fit. In this case they appointed a UN body as the new mandatory until such time as the inhabitants could prove they could stand on their own

That leads back to my unanswered question.

If they had that authority, why didn't they just hand the territory to the Zionists?

Because the mandate and UN charter dont work like that, they had to declare their intentions and then prove they were able to carry them out. The Jews did this in 1949 by making international agreements for which their leader was held responsible for when he signed on the bottom line. The Jews showed they were capable of acting in a peaceful manner and so ticked all the boxes.


When did the arab muslims do the same ?

That wasn't the process.

Unless you have a link that says that.

The UN charter and the LoN mandate

No they don't

Unless you can quote the Passages.

 

[Phoenall]

WRONG as successors to the LoN they did have the authority to act as they saw fit. In this case they appointed a UN body as the new mandatory until such time as the inhabitants could prove they could stand on their own

That leads back to my unanswered question.

If they had that authority, why didn't they just hand the territory to the Zionists?

Because the mandate and UN charter dont work like that, they had to declare their intentions and then prove they were able to carry them out. The Jews did this in 1949 by making international agreements for which their leader was held responsible for when he signed on the bottom line. The Jews showed they were capable of acting in a peaceful manner and so ticked all the boxes.


When did the arab muslims do the same ?

That wasn't the process.

Unless you have a link that says that.

The UN charter and the LoN mandate

No they don't

Unless you can quote the Passages.

Yes they do and they have been quoted many times over the last week, see what happens when you ignore links asked for you make yourself look a complete fool

 

[P F Tinmore]

That leads back to my unanswered question.

If they had that authority, why didn't they just hand the territory to the Zionists?

Because the mandate and UN charter dont work like that, they had to declare their intentions and then prove they were able to carry them out. The Jews did this in 1949 by making international agreements for which their leader was held responsible for when he signed on the bottom line. The Jews showed they were capable of acting in a peaceful manner and so ticked all the boxes.


When did the arab muslims do the same ?

That wasn't the process.

Unless you have a link that says that.

The UN charter and the LoN mandate

No they don't

Unless you can quote the Passages.

Yes they do and they have been quoted many times over the last week, see what happens when you ignore links asked for you make yourself look a complete fool

Your usual duck.