Israeli flag burned as protests sweep Egypt

[P F Tinmore]

Auteur, et al,

Yes, the Arabs have a claim.


(COMMENT)

The Palestinian may have some grievance; valid grievances. But they went about addressing the grievances through a very inappropriate process. The choices they made had consequences. They realized adverse consequences.


Whether we look at the Balfour Declaration, the Faisal-Wiezmann Agreement, the San Remo Conference, the Treaty of Sevres, the Mandate of Palestine, or the General Assembly 181(II), which has been recognized by the Palestinians as internationally legitimate, the Hostile Arab/Palestinian choice of going to war was inappropriate and had consequences that lead them directly to the environment which they enjoy today; and an environment that they essentially demand through their continued hostile actions.

If the Palestinian wants to alter their environment, they have to alter their behaviors.

I don't care how many centuries the Palestinian claim to have been inhabitance of the region, on one second of that time were they sovereign unto themselves. Nothing has change except the opportunity for them to become sovereign, and they rejected it.

Yes, I've heard all the arguments that they didn't get their rightful percentage. Well, life isn't fair. And as long as they focus on their computational percentage, they will loose. It was never the intention of the power-that-be, to make the apportionment on that basis.

Fight if you must. Remain quarantined for as long as you want. But always know, your actions forced your opponent to put you in the time-out box. There is no inherent right for you to challenge the sovereign integrity of the State of Israel. Your occupation is based on the threat you pose to the security of the member state and the region. It is not because Israel wants the land or the people (especially not the people). No one wants the Palestinian; not Lebanon, not Syria, not Jordan, not Egypt and not Saudi Arabia. It is a non-productive, parasitic culture. If the people of the Gaza Strip and West Bank emulated Israel more, they would have been ever so much more better off as a nation and a prosperous people.

PS: I noticed your offhand comment about HRH Faisal (Emir of Mecca). I also noticed that HM Faisal I got his Hashemite Kingdom from the UK and the Palestinian didn't. Hmmm!​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing has change except the opportunity for them to become sovereign, and they rejected it.

The Palestinians never rejected sovereignty.

Of course they did. That's why they don't have a state.

When did that happen?

 

[Hossfly]

The Palestinians never rejected sovereignty.

Of course they did. That's why they don't have a state.

When did that happen?

While you were watching Mickey Mouse Club. Get wise, Tinmore. No-one is gonna undo history. You don't get your marbles back.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course they did. That's why they don't have a state.

When did that happen?

While you were watching Mickey Mouse Club. Get wise, Tinmore. No-one is gonna undo history. You don't get your marbles back.

Undo what history? The Palestinians never rejected sovereignty.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I here this all the time.

The Palestinians never rejected sovereignty.

(OBSERVATION)

The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 of 29 January 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

When did that happen?

While you were watching Mickey Mouse Club. Get wise, Tinmore. No-one is gonna undo history. You don't get your marbles back.

Undo what history? The Palestinians never rejected sovereignty.

You're right, the Arab countries did it for them

 

[Hossfly]

When did that happen?

While you were watching Mickey Mouse Club. Get wise, Tinmore. No-one is gonna undo history. You don't get your marbles back.

Undo what history? The Palestinians never rejected sovereignty.

Let's face it, Tinmore, there were no Arab Palestinians. That's why not too longer ago an Egyptian official said that all you Gazans should come back to Egypt. Meanwhile, I will always remember what a retired State Department employee who posted on another forum said........... (By the way, if you think that America died in 1913, you too could go back to Egypt. No doubt you will be most welcome there.)
Sure there was a Palestine. It was invented in the 1960s in a conference room at 1 Lubyanka, Dzershinsky Place, Red Square, Moscow, CCCP. It came complete with a "Palestinian people" too. In fact, its legacy leader was trained east of Moscow at the legendary Balashikha special-ops school.

 

[Auteur]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I here this all the time.

The Palestinians never rejected sovereignty.

(OBSERVATION)

The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 of 29 January 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

It wasn't a rejection of sovereignty, it was a rejection of such under the terms offered, which were blatently unfair, and ignored the long standing forced immigration and land seizures to date. It is nonsense to say they rejected something they have been fighting for for two generations.

 

[Auteur]

Auteur, et al,

Yes, the Arabs have a claim.

If you want to use that logic, HB67, then Israel's have an even more tenuous claim to the land. "Israeli's" did not exist before 1949. And indeed, the residents of Israel today are a most cosmopolitan and polyglot group, with immigrants (many recent) from around the world. The only common thread is magical belief system, and in fact not all Israelis put much stock in that either. Palestinian Arab roots go back for generations, perhaps centuries, certainly pre-dating 1949. The Jewish claim on the land is based simply on the concensus that they would like to have it. You can dredge up some dubious documents, such as the Balfour Declaraton (modest help), or Rocco's favorite, the Sharif of Mecca (pretty much zero help), or some ancient history (you would be risking ridicule here), but that statement cuts to the heart of the matter.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian may have some grievance; valid grievances. But they went about addressing the grievances through a very inappropriate process. The choices they made had consequences. They realized adverse consequences.


Whether we look at the Balfour Declaration, the Faisal-Wiezmann Agreement, the San Remo Conference, the Treaty of Sevres, the Mandate of Palestine, or the General Assembly 181(II), which has been recognized by the Palestinians as internationally legitimate, the Hostile Arab/Palestinian choice of going to war was inappropriate and had consequences that lead them directly to the environment which they enjoy today; and an environment that they essentially demand through their continued hostile actions.

If the Palestinian wants to alter their environment, they have to alter their behaviors.

I don't care how many centuries the Palestinian claim to have been inhabitance of the region, on one second of that time were they sovereign unto themselves. Nothing has change except the opportunity for them to become sovereign, and they rejected it.

Yes, I've heard all the arguments that they didn't get their rightful percentage. Well, life isn't fair. And as long as they focus on their computational percentage, they will loose. It was never the intention of the power-that-be, to make the apportionment on that basis.

Fight if you must. Remain quarantined for as long as you want. But always know, your actions forced your opponent to put you in the time-out box. There is no inherent right for you to challenge the sovereign integrity of the State of Israel. Your occupation is based on the threat you pose to the security of the member state and the region. It is not because Israel wants the land or the people (especially not the people). No one wants the Palestinian; not Lebanon, not Syria, not Jordan, not Egypt and not Saudi Arabia. It is a non-productive, parasitic culture. If the people of the Gaza Strip and West Bank emulated Israel more, they would have been ever so much more better off as a nation and a prosperous people.

PS: I noticed your offhand comment about HRH Faisal (Emir of Mecca). I also noticed that HM Faisal I got his Hashemite Kingdom from the UK and the Palestinian didn't. Hmmm!​

Most Respectfully,
R

There is an irony here in that although an American, from a country famous for being born in a rejection of colonialism (not exactly the case, but that's another thread), and a celebrant of self-determination, you now strongly insist on the validity of not only colonial dictates, but one's nearly 100 years old. What do you think- is democracy BS? So you think you are shouldering the white man's burden?

In 1776, Americans had "no right" to a sovereign nation. They were British subjects, and under the authority of the crown. Yet they changed that because they wanted something different. When Palestinians are trying for the same thing today, you want to fall back on imperial dictates, and downplay democracy.

By the way, have you had a look at the PA website yet?

 

[RoccoR]

Auteur, et al,

There is an irony here in that although an American, from a country famous for being born in a rejection of colonialism (not exactly the case, but that's another thread), and a celebrant of self-determination, you now strongly insist on the validity of not only colonial dictates, but one's nearly 100 years old. What do you think- is democracy BS? So you think you are shouldering the white man's burden?

(COMMENT)

The US is a "Republic" and not a "Democracy." But I understand what you are saying. We promote democracy as an objective.

But there is no comparison between the US in colonial days and Palestine. Palestine was never a colony. It was an Imperial holding under the Ottoman Empire and a Protectorate under Mandate.

In 1776, Americans had "no right" to a sovereign nation. They were British subjects, and under the authority of the crown. Yet they changed that because they wanted something different. When Palestinians are trying for the same thing today, you want to fall back on imperial dictates, and downplay democracy.

(COMMENT)

The difference between the US and Palestine is that the US was not challenging the sovereignty of a third country. It challenged its parent nation.

Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip) are not a sibling or colonial holdings of Israel. It is occupied for the reason that it presents a direct threat to the region and the sovereignty of a recognized nation.

By the way, have you had a look at the PA website yet?

(COMMENT)

Which particular site are you meaning and what specifically do you want me to see?

PALESTINIAN AUTONOMY (PA)

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION

Palestinian National Authority​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I here this all the time.

The Palestinians never rejected sovereignty.

(OBSERVATION)

The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 of 29 January 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty is not mentioned.

They rejected partition. (giving over half of their country to foreigners) I can't think of anyone else in the world who would accept such an offer.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, maybe that wasn't said in that meeting.

Yeah, I here this all the time.

The Palestinians never rejected sovereignty.

(OBSERVATION)

The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 of 29 January 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty is not mentioned.

They rejected partition. (giving over half of their country to foreigners) I can't think of anyone else in the world who would accept such an offer.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, since this was the UN Security Council implementation effort for GA Resolution 181(II), it was stated in terms of an Arab State and a Jewish State.

As far as the percentage goes, 77% of the Mandate had been earmarked for the Hashemite Kingdom. Of the remaining 23%, the carved-out works out to a 60:40 split (approx) in favor of the Jewish State.

Everyone knew what was at stake. They cannot play dumb.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, maybe that wasn't said in that meeting.

Yeah, I here this all the time.


(OBSERVATION)



Most Respectfully,
R

Sovereignty is not mentioned.

They rejected partition. (giving over half of their country to foreigners) I can't think of anyone else in the world who would accept such an offer.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, since this was the UN Security Council implementation effort for GA Resolution 181(II), it was stated in terms of an Arab State and a Jewish State.

As far as the percentage goes, 77% of the Mandate had been earmarked for the Hashemite Kingdom. Of the remaining 23%, the carved-out works out to a 60:40 split (approx) in favor of the Jewish State.

Everyone knew what was at stake. They cannot play dumb.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians had the right to reject the UN proposal for partition. The Palestinians right to sovereignty is independent from the resolution.

 

[Roudy]

Ok so you're saying that the treaty between Israel and Egypt is 'fake' or not legitimate , right ?

The Peace treaty was the assassinated Sadat's doing...Israel is very powerful and AIPAC in America keeps the munitions flowing...The people did not vote for peace, they were stymied by Dictators who were making billions in corruption. The people know this, and the hate for Israel festers in all Islamic Nations.

No peace by Israel that still annexes Arab Lands and E. Jerusalem...those wounds will never go away unless Israel goes back to the 67 borders and starts changing public opinion in the ME and the World at large, or in time it will end in fire.

Anyone who believes that the Arabs' aspirations begin and end with the "1967 borders" is is dangerously naive.

Maybe begins but doesn't end.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, of course. It makes perfect sense.

More smoke, Rocco?

Why would the Palestinians fly another's flag?

You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

A flag, used by several entities, flying over a theater, proves the existence of Palestine.

Yeah, that make sense.

v/r
R

Funny part is its the Arab League Jordanian flag. Now that's what you call grasping at strings. Ha ha.

 

[Auteur]

Auteur, et al,

There is an irony here in that although an American, from a country famous for being born in a rejection of colonialism (not exactly the case, but that's another thread), and a celebrant of self-determination, you now strongly insist on the validity of not only colonial dictates, but one's nearly 100 years old. What do you think- is democracy BS? So you think you are shouldering the white man's burden?

(COMMENT)

The US is a "Republic" and not a "Democracy." But I understand what you are saying. We promote democracy as an objective.

But there is no comparison between the US in colonial days and Palestine. Palestine was never a colony. It was an Imperial holding under the Ottoman Empire and a Protectorate under Mandate.

In 1776, Americans had "no right" to a sovereign nation. They were British subjects, and under the authority of the crown. Yet they changed that because they wanted something different. When Palestinians are trying for the same thing today, you want to fall back on imperial dictates, and downplay democracy.

(COMMENT)

The difference between the US and Palestine is that the US was not challenging the sovereignty of a third country. It challenged its parent nation.

Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip) are not a sibling or colonial holdings of Israel. It is occupied for the reason that it presents a direct threat to the region and the sovereignty of a recognized nation.

By the way, have you had a look at the PA website yet?

(COMMENT)

Which particular site are you meaning and what specifically do you want me to see?

PALESTINIAN AUTONOMY (PA)

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION

Palestinian National Authority​

Most Respectfully,
R

Semantics Mr R-really, this is pretty thin stuff. Clearly, the US is a republic and a democracy, certainly for the purposes of the discussion here.

And there is an exact comparison between the US and Palestine. American rebels at the time insisted they were being oppressed as an authority was making laws that affected their lives without their input. (No representation without taxation! Remember?) Palestinians have had various authorities go over their heads and make laws and agreements that affected them greatly, but they have had no input. The Ottomans were succeeded by the British, by way of the mandate, who were succeeded by the Jews in 1949, hardly missing a stroke.

You can place any label on it you want, but when large groups of previously foreign individuals arrive in a country, and insist on running things, this is colonialism. And in fact, since 1967, colonialism has not only continued, but become blatant and unashamed. Half a million settlers have moved into the last little bits of previously held Palestinian territory, and the inhabitants there have not even been given the veneer of citizenship, but have taken of the status of occupied people, a la France 1940/44, for example.

As for the PA website, I want you to acknowledge hear the official policy of the PA, which is peace with Israel, based on the 2002 Saudi proposal.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Who cares what the PA website says? When PA leaders make speeches in Arabic, they talk about destroying Israel. Which is the official policy?

 

[Auteur]

Who cares what the PA website says? When PA leaders make speeches in Arabic, they talk about destroying Israel. Which is the official policy?

It is not that surprising that those in dire straights make strong statements. The destruction of Japan and Germany were urged by many during WW2. Many Israeli's have made similar comments regarding Arabs:

When the leader of Israel's religious-Zionist Meimad Party recently addressed a meeting of 800 high-school students in a Tel Aviv suburb, his words on the virtue of Israeli democracy for all its citizens were drowned out by student chants of "Death to the Arabs."

Anti-Arab racism in Israel | rabble.ca

The difference is of course, that the Israeli's actually did it- they effectively destroyed Arab Palestine, colonizing the land and evicting the inhabitants.

Your question is a rhetorical question. You understand the difference between official policy, and heated, emotional outbursts. But it is more convenient to quote the outrageous statements, than risk fair negotiation, and the give and take necessary for true peace.


"We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village." * Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, quoted in Ha'aretz, April 4, 1969.

Disturbing Quotes From Leading Zionists

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Who cares what the PA website says? When PA leaders make speeches in Arabic, they talk about destroying Israel. Which is the official policy?

It is not that surprising that those in dire straights make strong statements. The destruction of Japan and Germany were urged by many during WW2. Many Israeli's have made similar comments regarding Arabs:

When the leader of Israel's religious-Zionist Meimad Party recently addressed a meeting of 800 high-school students in a Tel Aviv suburb, his words on the virtue of Israeli democracy for all its citizens were drowned out by student chants of "Death to the Arabs."

Anti-Arab racism in Israel | rabble.ca

The difference is of course, that the Israeli's actually did it- they effectively destroyed Arab Palestine, colonizing the land and evicting the inhabitants.

Your question is a rhetorical question. You understand the difference between official policy, and heated, emotional outbursts. But it is more convenient to quote the outrageous statements, than risk fair negotiation, and the give and take necessary for true peace.


"We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village." * Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, quoted in Ha'aretz, April 4, 1969.

Disturbing Quotes From Leading Zionists

The above is a MISQUOTE:

ACTUAL QUOTE AND CONTEXT:

The quote is taken from an address Dayan gave to Technion University students on March 19, 1969. A transcript of the speech appeared in Ha'aretz on April 4, 1969.

In answer to a student's question suggesting that Israel adopt a policy of punishing Arabs who commit crimes in the West Bank by deportation to Jordan, Dayan answers that he is vehemently opposed to this idea, insisting that the answer to the longstanding Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to live together with Arab neighbors. He goes on to say:

We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn't any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement.

Dayan's conclusion was that the solution to the Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to coexist with them.

In the misquote, the key phrase "we purchased the land from Arabs" is omitted, and thus Dayan's meaning is reversed. Dayan was not saying that Arabs were dispossessed. On the contrary, he was indicating that though Arabs sold the land of their own free will, given their presence in the region, the Israeli goal is to live peacefully together with them.


Source from
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=371&x_context=7

.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Interesting that you left out from Dayan's quote the following:

"In considerable areas of the country we bought lands from the Arabs."

Buying land is a lot different than "taking" it, isn't it? In fact, what's wrong with Jews buying land from Arabs during the first half of the 1900s?

You want to perpetuate the myth that the Jews "pushed out" the Arab poplulation, but the facts simply are not on your side. The Jews who came to Israel from Herzl's time to 1948 did so in accordance with the presiding law, and acquired land in the same manner.

Had the Arabs simply accepted this, perhaps a Partition Plan would not have been necessary. Had they accepted the Partition Plan, there would have been no War of Independence. Had there been no War of Independence, Arabs would not have been displaced.

You weep for a people who created their own fate.

 

[Roudy]

Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind:

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.

This declaration by a true "Palestinian" should have some significance for a sincerely neutral observer. Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth