Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't quite understand this answer. What does US Influence, elsewhere in the world, have to do with the topic (Can Palestinians Govern Palestine?)?

...Hamas won the nationwide elections in all of Palestine. (The West Bank and Gaza.) They were the majority party in the Palestinian Authority. You imply that the Palestinians were trying to pass the blame onto the US. However, my report was from a journalist in Britain...

While the VF article has many elements of a hit piece on the US - journalists in Europe are big on that - I'll not argue its veracity or its conclusions. Instead I will note that the article illuminates the Quartet's (the US, the EU, Russia & the UN) reaction to the election of a known terrorist organization - one whose own charter specifically rejects peaceful coexistence with Israel - in the Territories and the impact of their election on the prospects for Mideast peace.
The article makes clear Iranian influence on the Muslim Bro-hood affiliated Hamas (for which Iran pays handsomely) and the Quartet's (and Fatah's) realization that what was left of the progress and hope initiated at Oslo would be wiped out.
In effect, the US was desperate to salvage what remained of Oslo as the basis of new peace talks.
What a horrible agenda!
The actions of both Hamas and Fatah in the subsequent violence provided further proof that neither is capable of organizing the rule-of-law gov't or society which the Pals so desperately need if they are to establish a state and self-rule. Simply declaring a Palestinian State is not sufficient.

The US only believes in democracy when the people they like get elected.

BULLSHIT, and you have no evidence to support your claim

Overthrowing other people’s governments: The Master List – William Blum

(COMMENT)

Actually, it does not matter if the US is successful, or the Russians, Saudi's, The Quartet, or The EU. All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response (or ignore).

The scope and magnitude of the violence directed against the Israelis depends on what the Palestinians do to bring Law to the Lawless of Palestine (West Bank + Gaza Strip). But the Arab Palestinians have no equivalent to a Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill, or Bat Masterson ---


Most Respectfully,
R

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response​

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who are you trying to kid?

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

(COMMENT)

This colonialism claim (does not meet the International Criteria under the Committee of 24) is merely used by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fool people into believing there is a valid justification for the incited violence.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24) the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Israel is not on the table of ADMINISTERING POWERs over territories under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

This is merely more circumstantial evidence that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is desperately searching for excuses to further the conflict --- as opposed to --- developing strategies for setting the conditions for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't quite understand this answer. What does US Influence, elsewhere in the world, have to do with the topic (Can Palestinians Govern Palestine?)?

While the VF article has many elements of a hit piece on the US - journalists in Europe are big on that - I'll not argue its veracity or its conclusions. Instead I will note that the article illuminates the Quartet's (the US, the EU, Russia & the UN) reaction to the election of a known terrorist organization - one whose own charter specifically rejects peaceful coexistence with Israel - in the Territories and the impact of their election on the prospects for Mideast peace.
The article makes clear Iranian influence on the Muslim Bro-hood affiliated Hamas (for which Iran pays handsomely) and the Quartet's (and Fatah's) realization that what was left of the progress and hope initiated at Oslo would be wiped out.
In effect, the US was desperate to salvage what remained of Oslo as the basis of new peace talks.
What a horrible agenda!
The actions of both Hamas and Fatah in the subsequent violence provided further proof that neither is capable of organizing the rule-of-law gov't or society which the Pals so desperately need if they are to establish a state and self-rule. Simply declaring a Palestinian State is not sufficient.

The US only believes in democracy when the people they like get elected.

BULLSHIT, and you have no evidence to support your claim

Overthrowing other people’s governments: The Master List – William Blum

(COMMENT)

Actually, it does not matter if the US is successful, or the Russians, Saudi's, The Quartet, or The EU. All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response (or ignore).

The scope and magnitude of the violence directed against the Israelis depends on what the Palestinians do to bring Law to the Lawless of Palestine (West Bank + Gaza Strip). But the Arab Palestinians have no equivalent to a Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill, or Bat Masterson ---


Most Respectfully,
R

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response​

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

That's nonsense. What Israel responds to is Islamic terrorists attempting to fulfill the writ of their cult.


The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)."

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who are you trying to kid?

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

(COMMENT)

This colonialism claim (does not meet the International Criteria under the Committee of 24) is merely used by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fool people into believing there is a valid justification for the incited violence.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24) the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Israel is not on the table of ADMINISTERING POWERs over territories under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

This is merely more circumstantial evidence that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is desperately searching for excuses to further the conflict --- as opposed to --- developing strategies for setting the conditions for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

How can Israel possibly be anything other than a colonial enterprise? People from one place going to another place, evicting the native people and establishing a society for themselves is colonialism. No different than what Cecil Rhodes and his cronies did.

That the Zionists publicly declared their intention to colonize Palestine and beyond as early as 1899 and reiterated it in 1926 debunks your nonsense.

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


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

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who are you trying to kid?

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

(COMMENT)

This colonialism claim (does not meet the International Criteria under the Committee of 24) is merely used by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fool people into believing there is a valid justification for the incited violence.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24) the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Israel is not on the table of ADMINISTERING POWERs over territories under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

This is merely more circumstantial evidence that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is desperately searching for excuses to further the conflict --- as opposed to --- developing strategies for setting the conditions for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

How can Israel possibly be anything other than a colonial enterprise? People from one place going to another place, evicting the native people and establishing a society for themselves is colonialism. No different than what Cecil Rhodes and his cronies did.

That the Zionists publicly declared their intention to colonize Palestine and beyond as early as 1899 and reiterated it in 1926 debunks your nonsense.

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


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

The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
A Population Boom

As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who are you trying to kid?

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

(COMMENT)

This colonialism claim (does not meet the International Criteria under the Committee of 24) is merely used by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fool people into believing there is a valid justification for the incited violence.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24) the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Israel is not on the table of ADMINISTERING POWERs over territories under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

This is merely more circumstantial evidence that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is desperately searching for excuses to further the conflict --- as opposed to --- developing strategies for setting the conditions for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Load of crap, Rocco.

Britain said it was colonialism. The Zionists said it was colonialism. History says it is colonialism. The facts on the ground show colonialism. The Palestinians and others call it colonialism.

What the UN says is based on politics not reality.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who are you trying to kid?

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

(COMMENT)

This colonialism claim (does not meet the International Criteria under the Committee of 24) is merely used by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fool people into believing there is a valid justification for the incited violence.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24) the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Israel is not on the table of ADMINISTERING POWERs over territories under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

This is merely more circumstantial evidence that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is desperately searching for excuses to further the conflict --- as opposed to --- developing strategies for setting the conditions for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Load of crap, Rocco.

Britain said it was colonialism. The Zionists said it was colonialism. History says it is colonialism. The facts on the ground show colonialism. The Palestinians and others call it colonialism.

What the UN says is based on politics not reality.

.... and the Arab-Moslem colonists still can't govern your mythical Pal'istan.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are relying on something that was talked about over 90 years ago. You are not talking about the confrontation triggered by Arab League Aggression (not once --- not twice but) three times.

That the Zionists publicly declared their intention to colonize Palestine and beyond as early as 1899 and reiterated it in 1926 debunks your nonsense.

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

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

(COMMENT)

Again, this is just another attempt to convince observers that the conflict did not start by Arab League forces breaking the UN Charter and crossing their individual frontiers to for the purpose of denying the Jewish right to self-determination as recommended by the UN.

Over vast periods of time, different political personalities will propose or envision something that is never politically adopted.

Here we are talking about the threat of conflict by the Arabs in February 1948 and executed in aggressive fashion in May 1948.

The Arab League understood that they were not to cross their threshold 1948, but they did it anyway. They understood that they were not to incite or intimidate the Israelis in 1967, but did it anyway. They understood that they were not to make a sneak attack against Israel in 1973 --- and still tried. In each case they violated Article 2 of the Charter. and in each case they suffered the consequences. And in each case, they want to be reimbursed for the their crimes.

Sorry about that. Everyone else in the world has to pay the penalty for the intentional damage they cause. It is just like breaking your neighbors window. You break it, you pay for it.

In 1926, the Palestine Frontier was considered the territory to which the Mandate applied. In the 90 years since that statement was made, when did Israel extend beyond the territorial boundary to which the former Mandate applied?

Again, just like the improper application of A/RES/1514(XV), you claim that the Weizmann political speech citation presents some tangible evidence of a wrong doing. It is my opinion that Israeli has not extended "Beyond Palestine Frontier."

(HELP)

I would appreciate you pointing out what 1926 era frontier of Palestine that Israel crossed beyond since its application of self-determination 1948 and the Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you know exactly what you are saying.

Load of crap, Rocco.

Britain said it was colonialism. The Zionists said it was colonialism. History says it is colonialism. The facts on the ground show colonialism. The Palestinians and others call it colonialism.

What the UN says is based on politics not reality.

(COMMENT)

When the British said that the Israeli action was colonialism, who did the claim was the "Colonial Power?"

---A group of Jewish people (from all over Europe and Russia) leave the one territory and under Articles of the Mandate for Palestine, immigrate to a territory to which the the Allied Powers had full Title and Rights (under Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty) and establish new settlements subject pursuant to the Mandate; what then is the parent nation extending its colonial power?
​

You are attempting to make some legal argument beyond the outside the law. In fact you are trying to use the color of law to establish some valid complaint where there is none.

And, if you are going to use the excuse that the UN made this or that claim, but it is invalid because it is political, then you had better not use any UN resolution at all; they are all suspect. And absent UN Resolution 1514 (a political driven document as you say, subject to administration by Committee of 24), what do you cite as anti-colonialist applicable to this venue? Who says (absent UN criteria) that "colonialism" is wrong? Or for that matter, in 1926, when you accuse Weizmann of making that statement, was colonialism even wrong then? (What Law)

Again, you are trying to cherry pick concepts that favor your position and dismiss other because they do not favor the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you know exactly what you are saying.

Load of crap, Rocco.

Britain said it was colonialism. The Zionists said it was colonialism. History says it is colonialism. The facts on the ground show colonialism. The Palestinians and others call it colonialism.

What the UN says is based on politics not reality.

(COMMENT)

When the British said that the Israeli action was colonialism, who did the claim was the "Colonial Power?"

---A group of Jewish people (from all over Europe and Russia) leave the one territory and under Articles of the Mandate for Palestine, immigrate to a territory to which the the Allied Powers had full Title and Rights (under Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty) and establish new settlements subject pursuant to the Mandate; what then is the parent nation extending its colonial power?
​

You are attempting to make some legal argument beyond the outside the law. In fact you are trying to use the color of law to establish some valid complaint where there is none.

And, if you are going to use the excuse that the UN made this or that claim, but it is invalid because it is political, then you had better not use any UN resolution at all; they are all suspect. And absent UN Resolution 1514 (a political driven document as you say, subject to administration by Committee of 24), what do you cite as anti-colonialist applicable to this venue? Who says (absent UN criteria) that "colonialism" is wrong? Or for that matter, in 1926, when you accuse Weizmann of making that statement, was colonialism even wrong then? (What Law)

Again, you are trying to cherry pick concepts that favor your position and dismiss other because they do not favor the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

montelatici summed it up in his post above.

Take anything he said and refute it.

I await your response.

 

[Shusha]

How can Israel possibly be anything other than a colonial enterprise?

Simple. Three little words. Right. Of. Return. Hell, you can knock that down to just one word and say, "RETURN". A peoples returning from a Diaspora, of their own free will, independently, (as opposed to under direction of a Sovereign Nation) by definition are not a colonial enterprise.

Are you going to argue that forcibly removing a peoples from a place makes them foreigners to that place? And colonizers and invaders if they return?

People from one place going to another place, evicting the native people and establishing a society for themselves is colonialism.

No, its not. The evicted native people can not be colonialists of a place that was theirs to begin with.

And just go ahead and try to argue that the Jewish people have no links to that land. You HAVE to argue that because you know damn well that eviction from a place and subsequent return does not make one a colonialist.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't quite understand this answer. What does US Influence, elsewhere in the world, have to do with the topic (Can Palestinians Govern Palestine?)?

While the VF article has many elements of a hit piece on the US - journalists in Europe are big on that - I'll not argue its veracity or its conclusions. Instead I will note that the article illuminates the Quartet's (the US, the EU, Russia & the UN) reaction to the election of a known terrorist organization - one whose own charter specifically rejects peaceful coexistence with Israel - in the Territories and the impact of their election on the prospects for Mideast peace.
The article makes clear Iranian influence on the Muslim Bro-hood affiliated Hamas (for which Iran pays handsomely) and the Quartet's (and Fatah's) realization that what was left of the progress and hope initiated at Oslo would be wiped out.
In effect, the US was desperate to salvage what remained of Oslo as the basis of new peace talks.
What a horrible agenda!
The actions of both Hamas and Fatah in the subsequent violence provided further proof that neither is capable of organizing the rule-of-law gov't or society which the Pals so desperately need if they are to establish a state and self-rule. Simply declaring a Palestinian State is not sufficient.

The US only believes in democracy when the people they like get elected.

BULLSHIT, and you have no evidence to support your claim

Overthrowing other people’s governments: The Master List – William Blum

(COMMENT)

Actually, it does not matter if the US is successful, or the Russians, Saudi's, The Quartet, or The EU. All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response (or ignore).

The scope and magnitude of the violence directed against the Israelis depends on what the Palestinians do to bring Law to the Lawless of Palestine (West Bank + Gaza Strip). But the Arab Palestinians have no equivalent to a Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill, or Bat Masterson ---


Most Respectfully,
R

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response​

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

How do you colonise your own land again, do explain it in detail so we can all understand. You forget that under international laws the land belongs to the Jews who dont have the numbers to defend against all of islam so make certain concessions hoping to get peace in the process. If the arab muslims attack with illegal weapons then Israel will respond with force, so dont be shocked when the arab muslims are killed protecting their illegal weapons.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can Israel possibly be anything other than a colonial enterprise?

Simple. Three little words. Right. Of. Return. Hell, you can knock that down to just one word and say, "RETURN". A peoples returning from a Diaspora, of their own free will, independently, (as opposed to under direction of a Sovereign Nation) by definition are not a colonial enterprise.

Are you going to argue that forcibly removing a peoples from a place makes them foreigners to that place? And colonizers and invaders if they return?

People from one place going to another place, evicting the native people and establishing a society for themselves is colonialism.

No, its not. The evicted native people can not be colonialists of a place that was theirs to begin with.

And just go ahead and try to argue that the Jewish people have no links to that land. You HAVE to argue that because you know damn well that eviction from a place and subsequent return does not make one a colonialist.

The Jews were not the first people in Palestine, nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who are you trying to kid?

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

(COMMENT)

This colonialism claim (does not meet the International Criteria under the Committee of 24) is merely used by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fool people into believing there is a valid justification for the incited violence.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24) the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Israel is not on the table of ADMINISTERING POWERs over territories under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

This is merely more circumstantial evidence that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is desperately searching for excuses to further the conflict --- as opposed to --- developing strategies for setting the conditions for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

How can Israel possibly be anything other than a colonial enterprise? People from one place going to another place, evicting the native people and establishing a society for themselves is colonialism. No different than what Cecil Rhodes and his cronies did.

That the Zionists publicly declared their intention to colonize Palestine and beyond as early as 1899 and reiterated it in 1926 debunks your nonsense.

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


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

The tinman wants this post refuting so here goes.

How can the word of one person made before the creation of Israel be indicative of Israeli governmental policy. It is like saying that the Popes declaration that the Jews killed God is indicative of the views of all Christians and as such will be used as the reason for the genocide of the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who are you trying to kid?

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

(COMMENT)

This colonialism claim (does not meet the International Criteria under the Committee of 24) is merely used by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fool people into believing there is a valid justification for the incited violence.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24) the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Israel is not on the table of ADMINISTERING POWERs over territories under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

This is merely more circumstantial evidence that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is desperately searching for excuses to further the conflict --- as opposed to --- developing strategies for setting the conditions for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Load of crap, Rocco.

Britain said it was colonialism. The Zionists said it was colonialism. History says it is colonialism. The facts on the ground show colonialism. The Palestinians and others call it colonialism.

What the UN says is based on politics not reality.

But not colonialism as you mean it, as you have failed to show which nation instigated the colonies and funded them ? Care to have a go at doing so, and then we can see just where you get your ideas from, which islamonazi hate sites you use as your source of "reality"

Yes the UN uses reality and not manipulated factoids to put across the truth, and you dont like seeing your bubbles burst

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you know exactly what you are saying.

Load of crap, Rocco.

Britain said it was colonialism. The Zionists said it was colonialism. History says it is colonialism. The facts on the ground show colonialism. The Palestinians and others call it colonialism.

What the UN says is based on politics not reality.

(COMMENT)

When the British said that the Israeli action was colonialism, who did the claim was the "Colonial Power?"

---A group of Jewish people (from all over Europe and Russia) leave the one territory and under Articles of the Mandate for Palestine, immigrate to a territory to which the the Allied Powers had full Title and Rights (under Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty) and establish new settlements subject pursuant to the Mandate; what then is the parent nation extending its colonial power?
​

You are attempting to make some legal argument beyond the outside the law. In fact you are trying to use the color of law to establish some valid complaint where there is none.

And, if you are going to use the excuse that the UN made this or that claim, but it is invalid because it is political, then you had better not use any UN resolution at all; they are all suspect. And absent UN Resolution 1514 (a political driven document as you say, subject to administration by Committee of 24), what do you cite as anti-colonialist applicable to this venue? Who says (absent UN criteria) that "colonialism" is wrong? Or for that matter, in 1926, when you accuse Weizmann of making that statement, was colonialism even wrong then? (What Law)

Again, you are trying to cherry pick concepts that favor your position and dismiss other because they do not favor the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

montelatici summed it up in his post above.

Take anything he said and refute it.

I await your response.

He did in the post you answered. What colonialism took place in 1926 that extended beyond the borders of palestine and which LAWS OF THAT TIME DID THEY BREACH. Then who was the colonial power that was the parent nation ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who are you trying to kid?

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

(COMMENT)

This colonialism claim (does not meet the International Criteria under the Committee of 24) is merely used by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fool people into believing there is a valid justification for the incited violence.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24) the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Israel is not on the table of ADMINISTERING POWERs over territories under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

This is merely more circumstantial evidence that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is desperately searching for excuses to further the conflict --- as opposed to --- developing strategies for setting the conditions for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Load of crap, Rocco.

Britain said it was colonialism. The Zionists said it was colonialism. History says it is colonialism. The facts on the ground show colonialism. The Palestinians and others call it colonialism.

What the UN says is based on politics not reality.

But not colonialism as you mean it, as you have failed to show which nation instigated the colonies and funded them ? Care to have a go at doing so, and then we can see just where you get your ideas from, which islamonazi hate sites you use as your source of "reality"

Yes the UN uses reality and not manipulated factoids to put across the truth, and you dont like seeing your bubbles burst

It was a British, Zionist joint effort.

You need to keep up.

 

[Phoenall]

How can Israel possibly be anything other than a colonial enterprise?

Simple. Three little words. Right. Of. Return. Hell, you can knock that down to just one word and say, "RETURN". A peoples returning from a Diaspora, of their own free will, independently, (as opposed to under direction of a Sovereign Nation) by definition are not a colonial enterprise.

Are you going to argue that forcibly removing a peoples from a place makes them foreigners to that place? And colonizers and invaders if they return?

People from one place going to another place, evicting the native people and establishing a society for themselves is colonialism.

No, its not. The evicted native people can not be colonialists of a place that was theirs to begin with.

And just go ahead and try to argue that the Jewish people have no links to that land. You HAVE to argue that because you know damn well that eviction from a place and subsequent return does not make one a colonialist.

The Jews were not the first people in Palestine, nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

Nor is there any historical precedence of a wholly arab muslim islamonazi dictatorship, yet this is what you are pushing for. You twist the arab muslims words to make it look like 6 million Jews will be given full citizenship and be allowed to live without fear, when the reality is that every single Jew would be murdered by the arab muslims as dictated by the koran and their charters.

The LoN were the legal sovereign owners of all of palestine and as such could get rid of it as they saw fit. So they granted one tiny parcel of land to the Jews as their national home, as in it was their home nation ruled by them and them alone, and the arab muslims being greedy wanted it all. You being a supporter and defender of islamonazi terrorism flail your pom pom's every time a Jewish child is savagely beaten and killed by psychopathic islamonazi scum.

THE LAND IS JEWISH UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND AS SUCH THE ARAB MUSLIM INVADERS SHOULD BE EVICTED BY AN INTERNATIONAL ARMED TASK FORCE. AND ANY ISLAMONAZI NATION THAT SENDS TROOPS TO OPPOSE THE ACTION TO BE REMOVED FROM THE UN AFTER ARRESTING THEIR DELEGATION. ONCE THE WORLD SHOWS ITS DISPLEASURE AT THE ACTIONS OF THE MUSLIMS THEY MIGHT START LIVING IN PEACE

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who are you trying to kid?

All that matters is what the Arab Palestinians do (or not do) relative to the Israeli response

The only thing Israel "responds" to is any opposition to it colonialism.

(COMMENT)

This colonialism claim (does not meet the International Criteria under the Committee of 24) is merely used by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fool people into believing there is a valid justification for the incited violence.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24) the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). Israel is not on the table of ADMINISTERING POWERs over territories under General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).

This is merely more circumstantial evidence that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is desperately searching for excuses to further the conflict --- as opposed to --- developing strategies for setting the conditions for peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Load of crap, Rocco.

Britain said it was colonialism. The Zionists said it was colonialism. History says it is colonialism. The facts on the ground show colonialism. The Palestinians and others call it colonialism.

What the UN says is based on politics not reality.

But not colonialism as you mean it, as you have failed to show which nation instigated the colonies and funded them ? Care to have a go at doing so, and then we can see just where you get your ideas from, which islamonazi hate sites you use as your source of "reality"

Yes the UN uses reality and not manipulated factoids to put across the truth, and you dont like seeing your bubbles burst

It was a British, Zionist joint effort.

You need to keep up.

How about a link from an unbiased source showing this, and then explain how it was mostly eastern European Jews that migrated legally to palestine and fulfilled the request of the LoN to close colonise palestine with the view to claiming independence once able to stand on their own.
The same treaty granted the arab muslims the same rights to close colonise the lands of trans Jordan, meaning that if the colonisation of Israel is illegal then the coloniisation of trans Jordan is also illegal.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm beginning to think that you are using "colonialism" as an alternative to "imperialism." (Very similar, but not quite the same thing.)

In the case of Colonialism, involving the subjugation of one people over another (which you assert as the Arab Palestinian), neither the British or the Jewish people attempted to bring under control by conquest.

• The Jewish People did not have a a sovereignty under which Palestine could be brought under the control.
• The In the beginning, the Mandatory (the British) was not establishing control under its own control, but rather under the authority of the Allied Powers; eventually to:

√ Set the conditions for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
√ Development of self-governing.
​

While it is very true that the British (as the appointed Mandatory) had full powers of legislation and
of administration, --- limited by the terms of this mandate --- powers and control were limited by the terms of the
Mandate for Palestine. The Mandatory, not having sovereignty over the territory, required the consent of the Council of the League of Nations before taking action outside the terms of the mandate.

Certainly it could be argued that the British Government exhibited some aspects of Imperial Authority as the selected Mandatory, the selection of the Mandatory was by the authority of the Principal Allied Powers, through the Title and Rights acquired by Peace Treaty.

It was a British, Zionist joint effort. You need to keep up.

(COMMENT)

Colonialism, as in every other case in history, was the extension of sovereignty by a foreign power over a distant territory. The British as Mandatory, was not extending its sovereignty. In fact, the Mandate specifically prohibited that, as the surrendered Title and Rights were equally the providence of the entire set of Allied Powers. Whether you talk about the American colonies, the colony of Hong Kong, the British Indian Ocean Territory, or Gibraltar, the one thing they all had in common was British Sovereignty. And until 1948, the Jewish, for whatever mysterious power it represented, did not by proxy extend sovereignty in the name of any other.

Israel, under the recommendation of the General Assembly, within the parameters of UN Charter [Chapter I, Article 1(2)] declared sovereignty and independence; and successfully defended it against Arab League aggression, by breaking their respective frontiers in a manner inconsistent with the UN [Chapter I Articles 22(3) and 2(4)]. Oddly enough, all the immediate adjacent Regional Members of the Arab League were once under Mandates, to include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

While Israel has become the only Regional State to rank within the TOP 25 on the Human Development Index (HDI), having achieved position #18; nearly twice that of any Arab State; Jordan (the other half of the same territory, ranks 80th.

There is little doubt that in the back of Arab leadership minds, there is the potential for great profits if another mass exodus could be triggered. The break-up value of Israel in the hands of an Islamic Waqf could be pillaged and plundered with the application of a free Sharia Laws.

Most Respectfully,
R