Israel on Sunday confiscated nearly 1,000 acres of privately owned Palestinian land near an Israeli

[Roudy]

Everybody knows you as an ignorant bigmouth bigot, who manages to make a fool of himself everytime. That's your accomplishment on this board.

And you're too pussy to answer direct questions.

You've got to have absolutely no balls whatsoever, to have questions scare the shit out of you.

Now he's interested in my balls. OMG. I told you already bigmouth, this ain't no gay dating website.

 

[montelatici]

Wrong, punk. Muslims have zero tolerance for gay rights, in fact in many countries they hang them. "Palestinians" are no exception.

Then I guess you and them have something in common? Your hatred and their hatred is the same hate. You both live to hate others.

You should be the one to preach others about hatred, you bigmouth ignorant bigot. Ha ha ha.

All you do is attack other posters, and when you are not attacking other posters you spout propaganda and lies. Get a life.

Get a grip on yourself Monte. how many ti se do yiu need to be told that you're the propagandist and liar extraordinaire?

And please don't get a haircut. It's good for people to see that your posts match the insanity of your looks.

I only post fact, backed by source documentation. You only spout propaganda. And, now you show your immaturity by attacking avatars, LOL

 

[Hossfly]

^^^^^^^^
Chart does not, and cannot, depict the Arab hoards that invaded from neighboring Arab lands.

True story.

It includes all migrants from 1920 thru 1946. The invading hordes that took over the place were Jewish.

Not according to the Grand Mufti



SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?


MUFTI: No.

Again, what does it matter that the Government of Palestinian Administration acquired the land before transferring it to the Jews? Plus they obviously didn't acquire enough as they owned less than 5% in 1943:

View attachment 39439

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

Wrong, punk. Muslims have zero tolerance for gay rights, in fact in many countries they hang them. "Palestinians" are no exception.

Then I guess you and them have something in common? Your hatred and their hatred is the same hate. You both live to hate others.

You should be the one to preach others about hatred, you bigmouth ignorant bigot. Ha ha ha.

All you do is attack other posters, and when you are not attacking other posters you spout propaganda and lies. Get a life.

Get a grip on yourself Monte. how many ti se do yiu need to be told that you're the propagandist and liar extraordinaire?

And please don't get a haircut. It's good for people to see that your posts match the insanity of your looks.

I only post fact, backed by source documentation. You only spout propaganda. And, now you show your immaturity by attacking avatars, LOL

Don't be shy, Monte. Report his ass.

 

[eagle1462010]

The War started when the Mufti and arabs said that the Jews had no right to a nation of their own in the forming of the Nations after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.......................

The War started when they chose to side with Hitler in WWII and agreed that killing Jews was the thing to do................The Grand Mufti created the Arab League to the purpose of killing the Jews.

The Grand Mufti helped create the Muslim Brotherhood to kill the Jews.........

The invading armies in 1948 were there to kill the Jews..........

The armies of Egypt and Syria were massed on the border of Israel in 1967 to kill the Jews.

ditto 1971 except Egypt made the first move.

and on and on again.

Their purpose all along is the destruction of Israel, and that has never changed.

The fact remains, there was no recorded incidents of major violence in that area until "AFTER" the Zionist migration.

And do I need to remind you, the Balfour Declaration stated the Zionists had no right to have a country, if it disenfranchised the inalienable rights of the existing non-Jewish population.

I put up the document on either this thread or another thread that posted the research of the British, which was a report in 1936 to the League of Nations on the situation. At the time they reported 400,000 Jews there and in surrounding areas of the mandates. with roughly 1.2 Million Muslims.

They constituted 25% of the population during that time.............1936............and under that proposal and analysis they said that due to the culture that the opposing sides couldn't co-exist...........so they offered 2 Million pounds to all who would be displaced from their homes...........BOTH SIDES to form the 2 State Solution.

Which was rejected by the Arabs of the time.................It was negotiated up until WWII...............with no results...................WWII put everything on hold as the world went up in flames.

 

[eagle1462010]

Pardon me...............1937

Plan of partition - Summary of the UK Palestine Royal Commission Peel Commission report - League of Nations Non-UN document 30 November 1937

 

[montelatici]

^^^^^^^^
Chart does not, and cannot, depict the Arab hoards that invaded from neighboring Arab lands.

True story.

It includes all migrants from 1920 thru 1946. The invading hordes that took over the place were Jewish.

Not according to the Grand Mufti



SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?


MUFTI: No.

Again, what does it matter that the Government of Palestinian Administration acquired the land before transferring it to the Jews? Plus they obviously didn't acquire enough as they owned less than 5% in 1943:

View attachment 39439

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

Then I guess you and them have something in common? Your hatred and their hatred is the same hate. You both live to hate others.

You should be the one to preach others about hatred, you bigmouth ignorant bigot. Ha ha ha.

All you do is attack other posters, and when you are not attacking other posters you spout propaganda and lies. Get a life.

Get a grip on yourself Monte. how many ti se do yiu need to be told that you're the propagandist and liar extraordinaire?

And please don't get a haircut. It's good for people to see that your posts match the insanity of your looks.

I only post fact, backed by source documentation. You only spout propaganda. And, now you show your immaturity by attacking avatars, LOL

Don't be shy, Monte. Report his ass.

Why would I want to stop the laughs he provides us?

 

[Roudy]

^^^^^^^^
Chart does not, and cannot, depict the Arab hoards that invaded from neighboring Arab lands.

True story.

It includes all migrants from 1920 thru 1946. The invading hordes that took over the place were Jewish.

Not according to the Grand Mufti



SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?


MUFTI: No.

Again, what does it matter that the Government of Palestinian Administration acquired the land before transferring it to the Jews? Plus they obviously didn't acquire enough as they owned less than 5% in 1943:

View attachment 39439

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

You should be the one to preach others about hatred, you bigmouth ignorant bigot. Ha ha ha.

All you do is attack other posters, and when you are not attacking other posters you spout propaganda and lies. Get a life.

Get a grip on yourself Monte. how many ti se do yiu need to be told that you're the propagandist and liar extraordinaire?

And please don't get a haircut. It's good for people to see that your posts match the insanity of your looks.

I only post fact, backed by source documentation. You only spout propaganda. And, now you show your immaturity by attacking avatars, LOL

Don't be shy, Monte. Report his ass.

Why would I want to stop the laughs he provides us?

Arab Palestinian mentality dictates that you claim victory everytime you get your caboose handed to you. Seems like you're a black belt in that art.

 

[toastman]

The War started before Israel even became a country..............with clashes and fighting from the beginning of the century...............

The War against Israel as a country has never ended from the day it was recognized and formed.

The war started when Zionists migrated in the hostility with their racist, apartheid policies.

Can you document that with actual events?

 

[toastman]

Wrong, punk. Muslims have zero tolerance for gay rights, in fact in many countries they hang them. "Palestinians" are no exception.

Then I guess you and them have something in common? Your hatred and their hatred is the same hate. You both live to hate others.

You should be the one to preach others about hatred, you bigmouth ignorant bigot. Ha ha ha.

All you do is attack other posters, and when you are not attacking other posters you spout propaganda and lies. Get a life.

Get a grip on yourself Monte. how many ti se do yiu need to be told that you're the propagandist and liar extraordinaire?

And please don't get a haircut. It's good for people to see that your posts match the insanity of your looks.

I only post fact, backed by source documentation. You only spout propaganda. And, now you show your immaturity by attacking avatars, LOL

We've been through this over and over Monti. Just because you say you only post facts, it doesn't take away from the ACTUAL fact that 98% of what you post is Palestinian propaganda and lies.

 

[eagle1462010]

Exchange of Land and Population

If Partition is to be effective in promoting a final settlement it must mean more than drawing a frontier and establishing two States. Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population.

The Treaties should provide that, if Arab owners of land in the Jewish State or Jewish owners of land in the Arab State should wish to sell their land and any plantations or crops thereon, the Government of the State concerned should be responsible for the purchase of such land, plantations and crops at a price to be fixed, if requires, by the Mandatory Administration. For this purpose a loan should, if required, be guaranteed for a reasonable amount.

The political aspect of the land problem is still more important. Owing to the fact that there has been no census since 1931 it is impossible to calculate with any precision the distribution of population between the Arab and Jewish areas; but, according to an approximate estimate, in the area allocated to the Jewish State (excluding the urban districts to be retained for a period under Mandatory Administration) there are now about 225,000 Arabs. In the area allocated to the Arab State there are only about 1,250 Jews; but there are about 125,000 Jews as against 85,000 Arabs in Jerusalem and Haifa. The existence of these minorities clearly constitutes the most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of Partition. If the settlement is to be clean and final, the question must be boldly faced and firmly dealt with. It calls for the highest statesmanship on the part of all concerned. - See more at: Plan of partition - Summary of the UK Palestine Royal Commission Peel Commission report - League of Nations Non-UN document 30 November 1937

The advantages to the Arabs of Partition on the lines we have proposed may be summarized as follows:--

• • 
    (i) They obtain their national independence and can co-operate on an equal footing with the Arabs of the neighbouring countries in the cause of Arab unity and progress.

• • 
    (ii) They are finally delivered from the fear of being swamped by the Jews, and from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule.

• • 
    (iii) In particular, the final limitation of the Jewish National Home within a fixed frontier and the enactment of a new Mandate for the protection of the Holy Places, solemnly guaranteed by the League of Nations, removes all anxiety lest the Holy Places should ever come under Jewish control.

• • 
    (iv) As a set-off to the loss of territory the Arabs regard as theirs, the Arab State will receive a subvention from the Jewish State. It will also, in view of the backwardness of Trans-Jordan, obtain a grant of £2,000,000 from the British Treasury; and, if an agreement can be reached as to the exchange of land and population, a further grant will be made for the conversion, as far as may prove possible, of uncultivable land in the Arab State into productive land from which the cultivators and the State alike will profit.

The advantages of Partition to the Jews may be summarized as follows:--

• • 
    (i) Partition secures the establishment of the Jewish National Home and relieves it from the possibility of its being subjected in the future to Arab rule.

• • 
    (ii) Partition enables the Jews in the fullest sense to call their National Home their own; for it converts it into a Jewish State. Its citizens will be able to admit as many Jews into it as they themselves believe can be absorbed. They will attain the primary objective of Zionism--a Jewish nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will cease at last to live a minority life.

 

[montelatici]

It includes all migrants from 1920 thru 1946. The invading hordes that took over the place were Jewish.

Not according to the Grand Mufti



SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?


MUFTI: No.

Again, what does it matter that the Government of Palestinian Administration acquired the land before transferring it to the Jews? Plus they obviously didn't acquire enough as they owned less than 5% in 1943:

View attachment 39439

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

All you do is attack other posters, and when you are not attacking other posters you spout propaganda and lies. Get a life.

Get a grip on yourself Monte. how many ti se do yiu need to be told that you're the propagandist and liar extraordinaire?

And please don't get a haircut. It's good for people to see that your posts match the insanity of your looks.

I only post fact, backed by source documentation. You only spout propaganda. And, now you show your immaturity by attacking avatars, LOL

Don't be shy, Monte. Report his ass.

Why would I want to stop the laughs he provides us?

Arab Palestinian mentality dictates that you claim victory everytime you get your caboose handed to you. Seems like you're a black belt in that art.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. You are too stupid to realize you have been made to look like a fool. LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

The Deal the British were trying to perform was to have both sides of the equation to new homes and NEW COUNTRIES.................

2 COUNTRIES..................

and in doing so, make the deal based on the Populations of the time...................

and they agreed to pay for it. 2 million pounds.................

Both Jews and Arabs would have to move under the deal as the British had found that the opposing cultures could not co-exist.

 

[montelatici]

The bigger question is, why were the British entitled to force the colonization of Palestine by European Jews and force the transfer of Christians and Muslims who had been living in Palestine for many generations?

 

[eagle1462010]

The bigger question is, why were the British entitled to force the colonization of Palestine by European Jews and force the transfer of Christians and Muslims who had been living in Palestine for many generations?

WAR...............THEY WON..............

OTTOMANS LOST.

 

[montelatici]

The bigger question is, why were the British entitled to force the colonization of Palestine by European Jews and force the transfer of Christians and Muslims who had been living in Palestine for many generations?

WAR...............THEY WON..............

OTTOMANS LOST.

Why would the loss by the Ottomans entitle the British to colonize Palestine? The Palestinians were not Turks, they were Christian and Muslim Arabs. I don't get your point.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

The issues behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even if you consider the events starting at the turn of the last century (beginning of the 20th Century), cannot be evaluated based on the contemporary political beliefs, modern moral judgments, accepted societal norms, and the characteristics of principles only recently adopted and not yet considered universally accepted in customary law.

Coyote, et al,

Yes --- this is your position; the position held by many.

Coyote, et al,

It is a form of political leverage.

Or is this just another form of collective punishment where the innocent get punished?

(COMMENT)

Just as sanctions and embargoes, which ultimately adversely impact all citizens, is political leverage (not collective punishment), so it is with Area "C" expansion.

Economic sanctions (as a tool of foreign policy) can be used for achieving political gains; or to apply political pressure to effect change. The two key supranational bodies to adopt sanctions measures are the United Nations (“UN”) and the European Union (“EU”). But in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the objectives are localized and impact observable. The State of Israel appears to be expanding settlements (in Area "C") in the absence of good faith negotiations and progress relative to the "permanent status of negotiations" issues found in Article V of the Oslo Accords:

• Jerusalem,
• Refugees,
• Settlements,
• Security arrangements,
• Borders,
• Relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and
• Other issues of common interest.

Sanctions tend to take the form of restrictive/coercive measures. Measures that may be economic, diplomatic or cultural (sometimes military). The objective of Area "C" expansion is a non-violent way to demonstrate that the longer the Arab Palestinians, the greater the impact will be in terms of territorial control. They concept and applications are the same.

• The freezing of Palestinian funds.
• The withdrawal of externally provided financial services.
• Bans or restrictions on trade traffic.
• Bans or restrictions on internal travel and checkpoints.
• The expansion of Settlements.

These pressures are an attempt to:

• Effect a change in the conduct of the Palestinian Government and leadership.
• To place pressure on the general population of the State of Palestine, so that they population transfers that pressure onto the regime or leadership, to seriously address the "permanent status of negotiations" issues --- .
• To deter, prevent and suppress the financing of Jihadist and Fedayeen activities through a variety of Palestinian Terrorist.

UN and EU Sanctions are very similar in nature to the objective of Israeli Settlement Expansion. Historically, the use of economic sanctions alone have a poor track record. Between 1914 and 1990, various countries imposed economic sanctions in 116 cases. They failed to achieve their stated objectives in 66 percent of those cases and were at best only partially successful in most of the rest. The Israeli approach is slightly different, with the ratchet gradually taking more and more territory, effectively reducing the nation building potential. If the expansion has no impact on the Palestinians --- than it merely adds to the capital infrastructure of Israel. If it does have an impact, the hopefully the Palestinians will be eventually persuaded to come back to the negotiating table with a mind to actually craft a workable treaty of peace on the "permanent status of negotiations" issues.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, while I (as always) appreciate your well thought out explanations - all I can see here is it is wrong. Very wrong. And it supports the arguments of those who claim that Israel just wants to steal land. It's happening and excuses get made for it. Then, if they Palestinians fight back - they are "terrorists".

And it isn't just the Palestinians who need to come back to the table - it's the Israeli's - with all their pre-conditions. In the meant time what is left for a state? And are non-Jews allowed to live in these new settlements? There's wrong here...and it's not just on the Palestinian side.

(COMMENT)

If this strategy --- at some point --- pressures the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to the negotiating table --- then the strategy was successful; and the Palestinian will begin to repatriate Area "C" Israeli controlled territory.

If the HoAP never comes to the table, and the status quo remains with progressively more Area "C" ground coming under Israeli infrastructure improvements, then that is a positive economic impact; and the HoAP is still contained and quarantined for security purposes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Do you feel this is right and just Rocco?

The Israeli's demand "Pre-Conditions to Peace" that the Palestinians must accept while simultaneously rejecting the Palestinians pre-conditions. Netanyahu made one honest comment in his campaign - he has no intention, and never had any intention of a two state solution.

Where does that leave things for the Palestinians?

(COMMENT)

At the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, what was "fair" (by customary law) was decided by the victorious Allied Powers. When the British and French set-up the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) over the territory surrendered by the Ottoman Empire and the territory in which Turkey renounced formally suzerainty or jurisdiction, which included Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) were treated similarly to the populations brought under administration for the last several hundred years.

Basically, the way we think today has been shaped by the gradual development of these principles. But at the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, in a time when the Balfour Declaration was written, and the San Remo Convention was held --- at the time the Mandates and the Orders in Council were published, none of these advanced rights were in place. What was fair, was determined by what the Allied Powers considered reasonable for the time.

• Charter of the United Nations (1945)
• The International Bill of Human Rights (1948)
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
• Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
• Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1989
• The core international human rights instruments Multiple 1965---2006
• NATIONALITY, STATELESSNESS, ASYLUM AND REFUGEES​
  • • Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
    • Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
    • Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
    • Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
    • Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live
  WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, INCLUDING GENOCIDE​
  • • Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
    • Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
    • Principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity
    • Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
    • Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda
    • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
  HUMANITARIAN LAW​
  • • Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
    • Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
    • Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)
    • Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)
• THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION​
  • • United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
    • General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources"
    • International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries
  RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND MINORITIES​
  • • Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
    • Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169)
    • Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities

To really and truly consider "what was fair" for the decisions made, you have to examine the customary law for that era and period. What did people think at that time. And "who" were the Arabs, what was their relative status and rights in that period --- given that the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People (A/RES/61/295 13 SEP 2007) was not even adopted until the 21st Century --- and then only as a non-binding baseline.

My answer has to be qualified in that I have to think like a 19th Century leader with barely a grasp of developing 20th Century concepts. Even in terms of the settlement issues, "fairness" is based on the International Criminal Court (ICC) began functioning on 1 July 2002 (21st Century), the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. When in fact the Oslo Accords are signed a before that, and specify the Areas "A" "B" "C"....

The HoAP are trying to fight a set of decisions made in the first half of the 20th Century with concept that were not developed until the second half of the 20th Century and with some just recently adopted in the 21st Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[teddyearp]

Teddy, I don't know what you mean here. As a member I can and will post my views and have no obligation to be neutral.

True and accepted.

Lying is not against the rules - if it were, we'd have very few posters here...ya think?

That's a fact!

 

[teddyearp]

Nor will there be peace with continued land confiscation for new settlements.

Well, if the Palestinians would just stop their violence and declare peace where they have land; it would stop.

 

[Roudy]

Not according to the Grand Mufti



SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?

MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?


MUFTI: No.

Again, what does it matter that the Government of Palestinian Administration acquired the land before transferring it to the Jews? Plus they obviously didn't acquire enough as they owned less than 5% in 1943:

View attachment 39439

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

Get a grip on yourself Monte. how many ti se do yiu need to be told that you're the propagandist and liar extraordinaire?

And please don't get a haircut. It's good for people to see that your posts match the insanity of your looks.

I only post fact, backed by source documentation. You only spout propaganda. And, now you show your immaturity by attacking avatars, LOL

Don't be shy, Monte. Report his ass.

Why would I want to stop the laughs he provides us?

Arab Palestinian mentality dictates that you claim victory everytime you get your caboose handed to you. Seems like you're a black belt in that art.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. You are too stupid to realize you have been made to look like a fool. LOL

You sure? Almost everybody in this thread seems to be calling you a liar and a fool. Palestinian mentality in action.

 

[Roudy]

The bigger question is, why were the British entitled to force the colonization of Palestine by European Jews and force the transfer of Christians and Muslims who had been living in Palestine for many generations?

WAR...............THEY WON..............

OTTOMANS LOST.

Why would the loss by the Ottomans entitle the British to colonize Palestine? The Palestinians were not Turks, they were Christian and Muslim Arabs. I don't get your point.

Ruled by Turks, KNUCKLEHEAD. And it would have stayed under Turkish rule had it not been for the Europeans defeating the Ottomans. In other words, non of these Arab states would have existed had it not been for the Europeans. Of course, 99% of the land going to Arabs is not enough, they want 100%. This conflict is and has always been about Islamic intolerance and violence. We see the animals in action all over the Middle East today. Not much has changed since then.