Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

Is comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa fair?

 

[Hollie]

Is comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa fair?

Nice duck and run.

 

[Hollie]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your statement here is about as wrong as it gets. You are confused with the "accurate description" of people (or person) and an "ad hominem" attack.

Name calling is a sign of losing.

(COMMENT)

You cannot argue the point that the Arab Palestinians have taken their criminal behaviors and tried to twist those actions into something they are not.

•• SOURCE LINK •• Originally from the UN Library in Geneva

This is the quintessential description of both the general population of the Arab Palestinians and the specific groups that have been identified as having a past history of criminal behaviors of this type.

The Arab Palestinian people that participate in Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the Israeli general public, for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

The general population of the Arab Palestinian people area citizenry that supports, sustains and often profit by organizing, instigating (incitement and encouragement), assisting (financial or material support) or participating in terrorist acts in the State of Israel; or the territories or the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, → or from acquiescing in or encouraging activities within the territories directed towards the commission of such acts.

To call the Arab Palestinians "terrorists" is being kind considering that in the 20th and 21st Centuries, they still try to insist that the deliberate and unmitigated as of directly killing innocent men, women, and children is justifiable barbarism for their political goals.

In many cases, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is nothing more than a front for the indirect support in the incitement, facilitating, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities. This is the label on the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your statement here is about as wrong as it gets. You are confused with the "accurate description" of people (or person) and an "ad hominem" attack.

Name calling is a sign of losing.

(COMMENT)

You cannot argue the point that the Arab Palestinians have taken their criminal behaviors and tried to twist those actions into something they are not.

•• SOURCE LINK •• Originally from the UN Library in Geneva
View attachment 227710

This is the quintessential description of both the general population of the Arab Palestinians and the specific groups that have been identified as having a past history of criminal behaviors of this type.

The Arab Palestinian people that participate in Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the Israeli general public, for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

The general population of the Arab Palestinian people area citizenry that supports, sustains and often profit by organizing, instigating (incitement and encouragement), assisting (financial or material support) or participating in terrorist acts in the State of Israel; or the territories or the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, → or from acquiescing in or encouraging activities within the territories directed towards the commission of such acts.

To call the Arab Palestinians "terrorists" is being kind considering that in the 20th and 21st Centuries, they still try to insist that the deliberate and unmitigated as of directly killing innocent men, women, and children is justifiable barbarism for their political goals.

In many cases, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is nothing more than a front for the indirect support in the incitement, facilitating, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities. This is the label on the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Do you really believe all that shit? 750,000 Palestinian did not leave their homes in 1948 because the Zionists said please.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Wrong perspective.

Do you really believe all that shit? 750,000 Palestinian did not leave their homes in 1948 because the Zionists said please.

(COMMENT)

I suspect that the Israelis facilitated the movement because the Arab Palestinians posed a threat to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; the principle objective set by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Wrong perspective.

Do you really believe all that shit? 750,000 Palestinian did not leave their homes in 1948 because the Zionists said please.

(COMMENT)

I suspect that the Israelis facilitated the movement because the Arab Palestinians posed a threat to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; the principle objective set by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

And where were they going to put this Jewish National Home?

 

[rylah]

1 BDS is antisemitic

This is an easy one. BDS is clearly antisemitic. SJP argue that ‘BDS targets the nation-state of Israel, not any religious or ethnic group’, which is half-true, but they fail to address the lies and hypocrisy inherent in the movement. In their argument they bring up historical Jewish anti-Zionism in the shape of the Labour Bund. The logic is this – if some Jewish people were against the formation of Israel in the 1900-1940’s, it is okay to oppose Zionism today. That’s pretty twisted. The Bundists opposed Zionism because they believed Europe could provide safe haven in the shape of Jewish autonomous regions. They were wrong and Bundism burnt in the fires of Auschwitz. SJP are cynically using Holocaust victims to shield criticism of an attack against Jews.

Yet the real issue with BDS is in its selectivity. Notice how BDS ‘target’ Israel. Why not Lebanon? Inside Lebanon are descendants of the 1948 Israel /Arab conflict, perpetually held under a real Apartheid system. These ‘refugees’ are explicitly referenced by BDS, yet BDS does not target those guilty of oppressing them. Why not? If human rights of Palestinians is key here, then BDS should cross borders, but it doesn’t. This shows that promoting the ‘human rights’ of Palestinians is an excuse. BDS is a movement set up to exclusively target the ‘Jewish state’ for reasons beyond those officially stated. Picking exclusively on Jews sounds pretty antisemitic to me.

2 BDS is too extreme
The SJP article doesn’t even put forward arguments to oppose this statement, it just suggests that such a label can be used against any movement. The extremist label ‘is just a convenient way to shut down all avenues of resistance’. This is merely a deflections that doesn’t address the issue. Of course BDS is too extreme. There is one nation in the whole of that region that provides all of its citizens with a voice, protects its minorities and has a respected judicial system. It has 9 million citizens. BDS seeks to destroy that nation. How is that not ‘too extreme’?

3 The way forward is through dialogue, not boycotts.
‘This is not an issue of communication, but of violent occupation’. Even if true that only explains away 33% of BDS (BDS have three goals, the 1967 ‘occupation’ is only one of them). Unless of course they wish to suggest *ALL* of Israel is ‘occupied’, which they don’t like doing because it exposes the extremism of the movement (see misconception number two). If you read the SJP response, it suggests dialogue is a negative thing. This is the core pillar upon which the case for Israel is silenced. They don’t want people to talk because they know their lies, hypocrisy and inconsistency will be exposed – hence – no to dialogue. What type of justice movement doesn’t give the ‘accused’ an opportunity to defend itself?

4 BDS puts the blame on Israeli civilians and not the state
SJP claim that ‘BDS is a targeted movement against certain companies that perpetuate violence against Palestinians. We recognize that people should not be blamed for where they are born nor should general citizens be held responsible for actions of the state.’

Remember Gal Gadot and Wonder Woman? BDS activists found a way to ‘legitimise’ the boycott of Gal Gadot. How? She served in the Israeli army. But then, so do all Israelis:

(full article online)

NYU, SJP and a response to the '10 Common Misconceptions About BDS'

You guys don't even bother to hide Your Jew hatred just go on and on and on targeting one tiny minority on every campus and market place.

But those displays of total obsession with laws protecting minorities from hate crimes - demonstrate more vividly what drives the organization and its activists.

BDS keeps providing us with the most vivid examples of organized antisemitism.

Is name calling all you got?

BDS hate crimes include:

1. Incitement to violence and hate speech.
2. Systematic attacks against an ethnic minority
3. Direct membership in illegal militant organizations.
4. Threats of armed assault and documented physical violence.

Q. How else can we define an organization that hunts Jews in schools and calls for the destruction of half of Jewish population on earth?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your statement here is about as wrong as it gets. You are confused with the "accurate description" of people (or person) and an "ad hominem" attack.

Name calling is a sign of losing.

(COMMENT)

You cannot argue the point that the Arab Palestinians have taken their criminal behaviors and tried to twist those actions into something they are not.

•• SOURCE LINK •• Originally from the UN Library in Geneva
View attachment 227710

This is the quintessential description of both the general population of the Arab Palestinians and the specific groups that have been identified as having a past history of criminal behaviors of this type.

The Arab Palestinian people that participate in Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the Israeli general public, for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

The general population of the Arab Palestinian people area citizenry that supports, sustains and often profit by organizing, instigating (incitement and encouragement), assisting (financial or material support) or participating in terrorist acts in the State of Israel; or the territories or the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, → or from acquiescing in or encouraging activities within the territories directed towards the commission of such acts.

To call the Arab Palestinians "terrorists" is being kind considering that in the 20th and 21st Centuries, they still try to insist that the deliberate and unmitigated as of directly killing innocent men, women, and children is justifiable barbarism for their political goals.

In many cases, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is nothing more than a front for the indirect support in the incitement, facilitating, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities. This is the label on the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Do you really believe all that shit? 750,000 Palestinian did not leave their homes in 1948 because the Zionists said please.

Arab-Moslem squatters fled because the Arab-Moslem combined armies announced their intention to “kill the Jews”.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Wrong perspective.

Do you really believe all that shit? 750,000 Palestinian did not leave their homes in 1948 because the Zionists said please.

(COMMENT)

I suspect that the Israelis facilitated the movement because the Arab Palestinians posed a threat to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; the principle objective set by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

And where were they going to put this Jewish National Home?

Where it was intended to go.

 

[P F Tinmore]

1 BDS is antisemitic

This is an easy one. BDS is clearly antisemitic. SJP argue that ‘BDS targets the nation-state of Israel, not any religious or ethnic group’, which is half-true, but they fail to address the lies and hypocrisy inherent in the movement. In their argument they bring up historical Jewish anti-Zionism in the shape of the Labour Bund. The logic is this – if some Jewish people were against the formation of Israel in the 1900-1940’s, it is okay to oppose Zionism today. That’s pretty twisted. The Bundists opposed Zionism because they believed Europe could provide safe haven in the shape of Jewish autonomous regions. They were wrong and Bundism burnt in the fires of Auschwitz. SJP are cynically using Holocaust victims to shield criticism of an attack against Jews.

Yet the real issue with BDS is in its selectivity. Notice how BDS ‘target’ Israel. Why not Lebanon? Inside Lebanon are descendants of the 1948 Israel /Arab conflict, perpetually held under a real Apartheid system. These ‘refugees’ are explicitly referenced by BDS, yet BDS does not target those guilty of oppressing them. Why not? If human rights of Palestinians is key here, then BDS should cross borders, but it doesn’t. This shows that promoting the ‘human rights’ of Palestinians is an excuse. BDS is a movement set up to exclusively target the ‘Jewish state’ for reasons beyond those officially stated. Picking exclusively on Jews sounds pretty antisemitic to me.

2 BDS is too extreme
The SJP article doesn’t even put forward arguments to oppose this statement, it just suggests that such a label can be used against any movement. The extremist label ‘is just a convenient way to shut down all avenues of resistance’. This is merely a deflections that doesn’t address the issue. Of course BDS is too extreme. There is one nation in the whole of that region that provides all of its citizens with a voice, protects its minorities and has a respected judicial system. It has 9 million citizens. BDS seeks to destroy that nation. How is that not ‘too extreme’?

3 The way forward is through dialogue, not boycotts.
‘This is not an issue of communication, but of violent occupation’. Even if true that only explains away 33% of BDS (BDS have three goals, the 1967 ‘occupation’ is only one of them). Unless of course they wish to suggest *ALL* of Israel is ‘occupied’, which they don’t like doing because it exposes the extremism of the movement (see misconception number two). If you read the SJP response, it suggests dialogue is a negative thing. This is the core pillar upon which the case for Israel is silenced. They don’t want people to talk because they know their lies, hypocrisy and inconsistency will be exposed – hence – no to dialogue. What type of justice movement doesn’t give the ‘accused’ an opportunity to defend itself?

4 BDS puts the blame on Israeli civilians and not the state
SJP claim that ‘BDS is a targeted movement against certain companies that perpetuate violence against Palestinians. We recognize that people should not be blamed for where they are born nor should general citizens be held responsible for actions of the state.’

Remember Gal Gadot and Wonder Woman? BDS activists found a way to ‘legitimise’ the boycott of Gal Gadot. How? She served in the Israeli army. But then, so do all Israelis:

(full article online)

NYU, SJP and a response to the '10 Common Misconceptions About BDS'

You guys don't even bother to hide Your Jew hatred just go on and on and on targeting one tiny minority on every campus and market place.

But those displays of total obsession with laws protecting minorities from hate crimes - demonstrate more vividly what drives the organization and its activists.

BDS keeps providing us with the most vivid examples of organized antisemitism.

Is name calling all you got?

BDS hate crimes include:

1. Incitement to violence and hate speech.
2. Systematic attacks against an ethnic minority
3. Direct membership in illegal militant organizations.
4. Threats of armed assault and documented physical violence.

Q. How else can we define an organization that hunts Jews in schools and calls for the destruction of half of Jewish population on earth?

I don't know. I don't know anybody like that.

 

[Hollie]

1 BDS is antisemitic

This is an easy one. BDS is clearly antisemitic. SJP argue that ‘BDS targets the nation-state of Israel, not any religious or ethnic group’, which is half-true, but they fail to address the lies and hypocrisy inherent in the movement. In their argument they bring up historical Jewish anti-Zionism in the shape of the Labour Bund. The logic is this – if some Jewish people were against the formation of Israel in the 1900-1940’s, it is okay to oppose Zionism today. That’s pretty twisted. The Bundists opposed Zionism because they believed Europe could provide safe haven in the shape of Jewish autonomous regions. They were wrong and Bundism burnt in the fires of Auschwitz. SJP are cynically using Holocaust victims to shield criticism of an attack against Jews.

Yet the real issue with BDS is in its selectivity. Notice how BDS ‘target’ Israel. Why not Lebanon? Inside Lebanon are descendants of the 1948 Israel /Arab conflict, perpetually held under a real Apartheid system. These ‘refugees’ are explicitly referenced by BDS, yet BDS does not target those guilty of oppressing them. Why not? If human rights of Palestinians is key here, then BDS should cross borders, but it doesn’t. This shows that promoting the ‘human rights’ of Palestinians is an excuse. BDS is a movement set up to exclusively target the ‘Jewish state’ for reasons beyond those officially stated. Picking exclusively on Jews sounds pretty antisemitic to me.

2 BDS is too extreme
The SJP article doesn’t even put forward arguments to oppose this statement, it just suggests that such a label can be used against any movement. The extremist label ‘is just a convenient way to shut down all avenues of resistance’. This is merely a deflections that doesn’t address the issue. Of course BDS is too extreme. There is one nation in the whole of that region that provides all of its citizens with a voice, protects its minorities and has a respected judicial system. It has 9 million citizens. BDS seeks to destroy that nation. How is that not ‘too extreme’?

3 The way forward is through dialogue, not boycotts.
‘This is not an issue of communication, but of violent occupation’. Even if true that only explains away 33% of BDS (BDS have three goals, the 1967 ‘occupation’ is only one of them). Unless of course they wish to suggest *ALL* of Israel is ‘occupied’, which they don’t like doing because it exposes the extremism of the movement (see misconception number two). If you read the SJP response, it suggests dialogue is a negative thing. This is the core pillar upon which the case for Israel is silenced. They don’t want people to talk because they know their lies, hypocrisy and inconsistency will be exposed – hence – no to dialogue. What type of justice movement doesn’t give the ‘accused’ an opportunity to defend itself?

4 BDS puts the blame on Israeli civilians and not the state
SJP claim that ‘BDS is a targeted movement against certain companies that perpetuate violence against Palestinians. We recognize that people should not be blamed for where they are born nor should general citizens be held responsible for actions of the state.’

Remember Gal Gadot and Wonder Woman? BDS activists found a way to ‘legitimise’ the boycott of Gal Gadot. How? She served in the Israeli army. But then, so do all Israelis:

(full article online)

NYU, SJP and a response to the '10 Common Misconceptions About BDS'

You guys don't even bother to hide Your Jew hatred just go on and on and on targeting one tiny minority on every campus and market place.

But those displays of total obsession with laws protecting minorities from hate crimes - demonstrate more vividly what drives the organization and its activists.

BDS keeps providing us with the most vivid examples of organized antisemitism.

Is name calling all you got?

BDS hate crimes include:

1. Incitement to violence and hate speech.
2. Systematic attacks against an ethnic minority
3. Direct membership in illegal militant organizations.
4. Threats of armed assault and documented physical violence.

Q. How else can we define an organization that hunts Jews in schools and calls for the destruction of half of Jewish population on earth?

I don't know. I don't know anybody like that.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[rylah]

1 BDS is antisemitic

This is an easy one. BDS is clearly antisemitic. SJP argue that ‘BDS targets the nation-state of Israel, not any religious or ethnic group’, which is half-true, but they fail to address the lies and hypocrisy inherent in the movement. In their argument they bring up historical Jewish anti-Zionism in the shape of the Labour Bund. The logic is this – if some Jewish people were against the formation of Israel in the 1900-1940’s, it is okay to oppose Zionism today. That’s pretty twisted. The Bundists opposed Zionism because they believed Europe could provide safe haven in the shape of Jewish autonomous regions. They were wrong and Bundism burnt in the fires of Auschwitz. SJP are cynically using Holocaust victims to shield criticism of an attack against Jews.

Yet the real issue with BDS is in its selectivity. Notice how BDS ‘target’ Israel. Why not Lebanon? Inside Lebanon are descendants of the 1948 Israel /Arab conflict, perpetually held under a real Apartheid system. These ‘refugees’ are explicitly referenced by BDS, yet BDS does not target those guilty of oppressing them. Why not? If human rights of Palestinians is key here, then BDS should cross borders, but it doesn’t. This shows that promoting the ‘human rights’ of Palestinians is an excuse. BDS is a movement set up to exclusively target the ‘Jewish state’ for reasons beyond those officially stated. Picking exclusively on Jews sounds pretty antisemitic to me.

2 BDS is too extreme
The SJP article doesn’t even put forward arguments to oppose this statement, it just suggests that such a label can be used against any movement. The extremist label ‘is just a convenient way to shut down all avenues of resistance’. This is merely a deflections that doesn’t address the issue. Of course BDS is too extreme. There is one nation in the whole of that region that provides all of its citizens with a voice, protects its minorities and has a respected judicial system. It has 9 million citizens. BDS seeks to destroy that nation. How is that not ‘too extreme’?

3 The way forward is through dialogue, not boycotts.
‘This is not an issue of communication, but of violent occupation’. Even if true that only explains away 33% of BDS (BDS have three goals, the 1967 ‘occupation’ is only one of them). Unless of course they wish to suggest *ALL* of Israel is ‘occupied’, which they don’t like doing because it exposes the extremism of the movement (see misconception number two). If you read the SJP response, it suggests dialogue is a negative thing. This is the core pillar upon which the case for Israel is silenced. They don’t want people to talk because they know their lies, hypocrisy and inconsistency will be exposed – hence – no to dialogue. What type of justice movement doesn’t give the ‘accused’ an opportunity to defend itself?

4 BDS puts the blame on Israeli civilians and not the state
SJP claim that ‘BDS is a targeted movement against certain companies that perpetuate violence against Palestinians. We recognize that people should not be blamed for where they are born nor should general citizens be held responsible for actions of the state.’

Remember Gal Gadot and Wonder Woman? BDS activists found a way to ‘legitimise’ the boycott of Gal Gadot. How? She served in the Israeli army. But then, so do all Israelis:

(full article online)

NYU, SJP and a response to the '10 Common Misconceptions About BDS'

You guys don't even bother to hide Your Jew hatred just go on and on and on targeting one tiny minority on every campus and market place.

But those displays of total obsession with laws protecting minorities from hate crimes - demonstrate more vividly what drives the organization and its activists.

BDS keeps providing us with the most vivid examples of organized antisemitism.

Is name calling all you got?

BDS hate crimes include:

1. Incitement to violence and hate speech.
2. Systematic attacks against an ethnic minority
3. Direct membership in illegal militant organizations.
4. Threats of armed assault and documented physical violence.

Q. How else can we define an organization that hunts Jews in schools and calls for the destruction of half of Jewish population on earth?

I don't know. I don't know anybody like that.

Pro-Palestine Student Loves Hamas,
Hates Jews And Gays

 

[Sixties Fan]

Report: Israel's economy minister invited to Bahrain

 

[Sixties Fan]

Saeb Erekat says no Arab state will normalize relations with Israel, as Bahrain invites Israel's Economy Minister to a conference ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/armistice_turk_eng.pdf

Well, I'm so glad you asked.

And where were they going to put this Jewish National Home?

(COMMENT)

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered, the treaty stipulated:

ARTICLE 16.

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

It would appear that the Allied Powers intended for the Jewish National Home to be placed in the territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrended to them.

ARTICLE 3.
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

The Allied Powers intended to place the Jewish National Home somewhere on this territory. The territory, at the time, was more accurately known as the Article 16 territory of the "Mudros Agreement: The Armistice Convention with Turkey (October 30, 1918);" under the control of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (1918-20) of the Allied Powers. Then immediately after the San Remos Conference of 1920, the territory transitioned when on 1 July 1920, a Civil Administration was established; and then later → by order of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." → the territories would b described under the League of Nations Mandate, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, or just (hereinafter) "Palestine."

Now I have the feeling that you are going to come back with one of your snappy little replies about: "All that just to say "Palestine."

Well, yeah!

My intent is to leave "No Doubt" that the entirety of the territory, or any part thereof, was not under Arab Sovereignty or any kind of control. That the national lines of demarkations where entirely in the hands of the Allied Powers (primarily the British Government).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/armistice_turk_eng.pdf

Well, I'm so glad you asked.

And where were they going to put this Jewish National Home?

(COMMENT)

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered, the treaty stipulated:

ARTICLE 16.

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

It would appear that the Allied Powers intended for the Jewish National Home to be placed in the territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrended to them.

ARTICLE 3.
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

The Allied Powers intended to place the Jewish National Home somewhere on this territory. The territory, at the time, was more accurately known as the Article 16 territory of the "Mudros Agreement: The Armistice Convention with Turkey (October 30, 1918);" under the control of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (1918-20) of the Allied Powers. Then immediately after the San Remos Conference of 1920, the territory transitioned when on 1 July 1920, a Civil Administration was established; and then later → by order of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." → the territories would b described under the League of Nations Mandate, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, or just (hereinafter) "Palestine."

Now I have the feeling that you are going to come back with one of your snappy little replied about: "All that just to say "Palestine."

Well, yeah!

My intent is to leave "No Doubt" that the entirety of the territory, or any part thereof, was not under Arab Sovereignty or any kind of control. That the national lines of demarkations where entirely in the hands of the Allied Powers (primarily the British Government).

Most Respectfully,
R

Suffice it to say that the British chose not to consult with the Jews, as it was their ancient homeland and their Mandate....what they wanted to call it. It should have been called The Mandate For Israel, but they chose the name the Romans used to humiliate the Jews those many centuries before.

Had it been called the Mandate for Israel, would the Arabs be calling their new nationality Israeli, or Israelite or whatever?

Doubtful.

Those in Europe who hated the Jews, basically handed the other haters of Jews in Asia, a way to try to destroy the country they were to re-create after so many centuries.

And truth be told, many of those European haters of Jews have not stopped helping those Asian haters of Jews with the hope that the Jewish State/Country the Jews EARNED back with so much hard work would some day be destroyed.

BDS is just another synonym for Jew Hatred.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/armistice_turk_eng.pdf

Well, I'm so glad you asked.

And where were they going to put this Jewish National Home?

(COMMENT)

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered, the treaty stipulated:

ARTICLE 16.

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

It would appear that the Allied Powers intended for the Jewish National Home to be placed in the territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrended to them.

ARTICLE 3.
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

The Allied Powers intended to place the Jewish National Home somewhere on this territory. The territory, at the time, was more accurately known as the Article 16 territory of the "Mudros Agreement: The Armistice Convention with Turkey (October 30, 1918);" under the control of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (1918-20) of the Allied Powers. Then immediately after the San Remos Conference of 1920, the territory transitioned when on 1 July 1920, a Civil Administration was established; and then later → by order of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." → the territories would b described under the League of Nations Mandate, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, or just (hereinafter) "Palestine."

Now I have the feeling that you are going to come back with one of your snappy little replies about: "All that just to say "Palestine."

Well, yeah!

My intent is to leave "No Doubt" that the entirety of the territory, or any part thereof, was not under Arab Sovereignty or any kind of control. That the national lines of demarkations where entirely in the hands of the Allied Powers (primarily the British Government).

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain never had any sovereignty over that territory.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/armistice_turk_eng.pdf

Well, I'm so glad you asked.

And where were they going to put this Jewish National Home?

(COMMENT)

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered, the treaty stipulated:

ARTICLE 16.

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

It would appear that the Allied Powers intended for the Jewish National Home to be placed in the territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrended to them.

ARTICLE 3.
From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:
The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​

The Allied Powers intended to place the Jewish National Home somewhere on this territory. The territory, at the time, was more accurately known as the Article 16 territory of the "Mudros Agreement: The Armistice Convention with Turkey (October 30, 1918);" under the control of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (1918-20) of the Allied Powers. Then immediately after the San Remos Conference of 1920, the territory transitioned when on 1 July 1920, a Civil Administration was established; and then later → by order of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922." → the territories would b described under the League of Nations Mandate, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, or just (hereinafter) "Palestine."

Now I have the feeling that you are going to come back with one of your snappy little replies about: "All that just to say "Palestine."

Well, yeah!

My intent is to leave "No Doubt" that the entirety of the territory, or any part thereof, was not under Arab Sovereignty or any kind of control. That the national lines of demarkations where entirely in the hands of the Allied Powers (primarily the British Government).

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain never had any sovereignty over that territory.

They conquered it from the Ottoman Empire.
To the Winner goes the spoils.
Always has been that way, and it will stay that way.

Arabs never had sovereignty over the land. But you want the land to be theirs, no matter what, as long as it is in Muslim hands. Never of Jews.

If Jews did to Muslims and Christians even half of what it has been done to them, Israel would be the whole Mandate promised to them, and not just what it is now, 20 % of the original ancient territory.

Let me hear you cry over Muslim lost wars again