Kerry: Door for 'Two-State Solution' May be Closing

[SAYIT]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You say this all the time.


(COMMENT)

Oh, I'm probably confused again. I thought about 70%(+) of the British Mandate of Palestine went to Trans-Jordan (Arab Palestinians); nearly everything East of the Jordan River. Not to mention about 50% (or the remaining 30%) went to Israel.

The Mandate did not belong to the Palestinians as your assertion suggests: "most of their country to foreigners." It was territory under the control of the Allied Powers.

This idea that the Palestinians had a country prior or during the mandate is just incorrect, historically and factually. The Allied Powers knew better, and the Ottoman's knew better. In fact, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan are creations (out of the French and British Mandates) of the Allied Powers.

The idea of "foreigners" is an isolationist concept (involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against jewish immigrates). Tje immigrants embarked on a project to purchase a large number of land parcels. In addition to acquisitions by the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, the Palestine Land Development Company, and the Jewish National Fund, as well as individual purchasers, in the acquisition of land. But land ownership has nothing to do with the national sovereignty. It has everything to do with Palestinian intolerance, as they are trying to make ownership an issue for the 30% of the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

I believe 78% of the Mandate's land mass was ceded to the Hashemites, "foreigners" from Arabia. They rule, through the power of their monarchy, over their nearly powerless Palestinian majority.

Indeed, and the Jordanians are working on that problem as we speak.

It has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue though.

Good on the Jordanians! If the Arab Spring nudged them into action we will look back on it as a success. I was just correcting Rocco's 70% number. It was closer to 80% and it set off a scramble for what was left.

 

[SAYIT]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You say this all the time.


(COMMENT)

Oh, I'm probably confused again. I thought about 70%(+) of the British Mandate of Palestine went to Trans-Jordan (Arab Palestinians); nearly everything East of the Jordan River. Not to mention about 50% (or the remaining 30%) went to Israel.

The Mandate did not belong to the Palestinians as your assertion suggests: "most of their country to foreigners." It was territory under the control of the Allied Powers.

This idea that the Palestinians had a country prior or during the mandate is just incorrect, historically and factually. The Allied Powers knew better, and the Ottoman's knew better. In fact, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan are creations (out of the French and British Mandates) of the Allied Powers.

The idea of "foreigners" is an isolationist concept (involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against jewish immigrates). Tje immigrants embarked on a project to purchase a large number of land parcels. In addition to acquisitions by the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, the Palestine Land Development Company, and the Jewish National Fund, as well as individual purchasers, in the acquisition of land. But land ownership has nothing to do with the national sovereignty. It has everything to do with Palestinian intolerance, as they are trying to make ownership an issue for the 30% of the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

I believe 78% of the Mandate's land mass was ceded to the Hashemites, "foreigners" from Arabia. They rule, through the power of their monarchy, over their nearly powerless Palestinian majority.

i do not think western colonial powers, or any colonial power, have any god given right to dictate to an indigenous people what that indigenous people's relationship to their land should be.

I'm happy for you but you weren't there and that's how it went down. The indigenous Palestinians have for decades been relegated to 2nd class status by their Hashemite brethren. That's a fact you seem eager to ignore.

 

[RoccoR]

reabhloideach, et al,

I stand corrected. 78%

I believe 78% of the Mandate's land mass was ceded to the Hashemites, "foreigners" from Arabia. They rule, through the power of their monarchy, over their nearly powerless Palestinian majority.

i do not think western colonial powers, or any colonial power, have any god given right to dictate to an indigenous people what that indigenous people's relationship to their land should be.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

I don't think that any "god given right" was a factor in this at all. The ruler is determined by the outcome of conflict. And the ruler has the power "to dictate to an indigenous people what that indigenous people's relationship to their land." It is not always fair, but for 3000 years, that is the way Palestine and the region as a whole has been govern. Sometimes benevolently and sometimes not.

But by the same token, the indigenous population doesn't have a "god given right" to rule over their land. That is the dominion of men with power. I cannot change America to a democracy; for the rest of my lifetime, it will be a republic with laws influenced by professional parasitic politicians (versus patriots) and men of power through money.

Again, I say, the Palestinians had the same opportunities as the Israelis have had. The Palestinians chose to determine their fate through trial by combat. One needs only look at the outcome to determine which culture had the better results. The Palestinian can turn the outcomes around by adopting a similar cultural paradigm. The question is, do they know how to build a culture that is as prosperous and economically viable as the Israelis?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

reabhloideach, et al,

I stand corrected. 78%

I believe 78% of the Mandate's land mass was ceded to the Hashemites, "foreigners" from Arabia. They rule, through the power of their monarchy, over their nearly powerless Palestinian majority.

i do not think western colonial powers, or any colonial power, have any god given right to dictate to an indigenous people what that indigenous people's relationship to their land should be.
(COMMENT)

I don't think that any "god given right" was a factor in this at all. The ruler is determined by the outcome of conflict. And the ruler has the power "to dictate to an indigenous people what that indigenous people's relationship to their land." It is not always fair, but for 3000 years, that is the way Palestine and the region as a whole has been govern. Sometimes benevolently and sometimes not.

But by the same token, the indigenous population doesn't have a "god given right" to rule over their land. That is the dominion of men with power. I cannot change America to a democracy; for the rest of my lifetime, it will be a republic with laws influenced by professional parasitic politicians (versus patriots) and men of power through money.

Again, I say, the Palestinians had the same opportunities as the Israelis have had. The Palestinians chose to determine their fate through trial by combat. One needs only look at the outcome to determine which culture had the better results. The Palestinian can turn the outcomes around by adopting a similar cultural paradigm. The question is, do they know how to build a culture that is as prosperous and economically viable as the Israelis?

Most Respectfully,
R

Over a hundred years ago you would be correct. Now that is a violation of international law.

The world is trying to move past the wild west of international politics.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused again.

Indeed, and the Jordanians are working on that problem as we speak.

It has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue though.

(COMMENT)

Maybe I made a mistake. Didn't you claim something to the effect that the Palestinians were required t to give most of their country to foreigners (implying the Israelis)? Well that is simply not the case. Most of Palestine went to Arabs. Only a much much smaller portion went to the Israelis.

You cannot imply that Israel was given the lions share of the land, when in fact it wasn't the case at all.

Now, if you want to say that the Arabs were given a vast majority of the territory, then that is quite a different argument. But I would also say that the outcomes of Jordan, since the peace treaty, have been quite favorable.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, not so quick.

Over a hundred years ago you would be correct. Now that is a violation of international law.

The world is trying to move past the wild west of international politics.

(COMMENT)

Specifically, which law are you referring to when you say "violation of international law."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused again.

Indeed, and the Jordanians are working on that problem as we speak.

It has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue though.

(COMMENT)

Maybe I made a mistake. Didn't you claim something to the effect that the Palestinians were required t to give most of their country to foreigners (implying the Israelis)? Well that is simply not the case. Most of Palestine went to Arabs. Only a much much smaller portion went to the Israelis.

You cannot imply that Israel was given the lions share of the land, when in fact it wasn't the case at all.

Now, if you want to say that the Arabs were given a vast majority of the territory, then that is quite a different argument. But I would also say that the outcomes of Jordan, since the peace treaty, have been quite favorable.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan is a different and separate issue. It is unrelated to Palestine.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused again.

Indeed, and the Jordanians are working on that problem as we speak.

It has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue though.

(COMMENT)

Maybe I made a mistake. Didn't you claim something to the effect that the Palestinians were required t to give most of their country to foreigners (implying the Israelis)? Well that is simply not the case. Most of Palestine went to Arabs. Only a much much smaller portion went to the Israelis.

You cannot imply that Israel was given the lions share of the land, when in fact it wasn't the case at all.

Now, if you want to say that the Arabs were given a vast majority of the territory, then that is quite a different argument. But I would also say that the outcomes of Jordan, since the peace treaty, have been quite favorable.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan is a different and separate issue. It is unrelated to Palestine.

No it's not, Tinmore. Explain yourself.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

How is it different?

I'm confused again.

Indeed, and the Jordanians are working on that problem as we speak.

It has nothing to do with the Palestinian issue though.

(COMMENT)

Maybe I made a mistake. Didn't you claim something to the effect that the Palestinians were required t to give most of their country to foreigners (implying the Israelis)? Well that is simply not the case. Most of Palestine went to Arabs. Only a much much smaller portion went to the Israelis.

You cannot imply that Israel was given the lions share of the land, when in fact it wasn't the case at all.

Now, if you want to say that the Arabs were given a vast majority of the territory, then that is quite a different argument. But I would also say that the outcomes of Jordan, since the peace treaty, have been quite favorable.

Jordan is a different and separate issue. It is unrelated to Palestine.

(QUESTION)

All those Middle East countries were made the exact same way as Israel, under the same laws, by the same Allied Powers, using the same post-conflict authority, many in the very same time frame.

How is Jordan different if it was created from the same Mandate?

(COMMENT)

It is different because the Palestinians don't want to challenge Jordan because they are Arab; but will challenge the Israelis because they are not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, not so quick.

Over a hundred years ago you would be correct. Now that is a violation of international law.

The world is trying to move past the wild west of international politics.

(COMMENT)

Specifically, which law are you referring to when you say "violation of international law."

Most Respectfully,
R

People have the right to self determination without external interference. It is illegal to deny a people their rights. Britain and the Zionists were external interferience.

It is illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force. All of Israel's land was taken by Israeli forces against the Palestinian civilian population.

 

[Saigon]

This isn't particularly difficult.

Hashemites (and the tribal Bedouin of the region) have always lived east of the Jordan River.

Palestinians have always lived west of the Jordan River.

It's always been a natural border.

The US and Mexico share a common border - that doesn't make them one country or one people.

I totally agree with Tinmore that Jordan is largely unrelated to the Palestinian issue.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

How is it different?

I'm confused again.


(COMMENT)

Maybe I made a mistake. Didn't you claim something to the effect that the Palestinians were required t to give most of their country to foreigners (implying the Israelis)? Well that is simply not the case. Most of Palestine went to Arabs. Only a much much smaller portion went to the Israelis.

You cannot imply that Israel was given the lions share of the land, when in fact it wasn't the case at all.

Now, if you want to say that the Arabs were given a vast majority of the territory, then that is quite a different argument. But I would also say that the outcomes of Jordan, since the peace treaty, have been quite favorable.

Jordan is a different and separate issue. It is unrelated to Palestine.

(QUESTION)

All those Middle East countries were made the exact same way as Israel, under the same laws, by the same Allied Powers, using the same post-conflict authority, many in the very same time frame.

How is Jordan different if it was created from the same Mandate?

(COMMENT)

It is different because the Palestinians don't want to challenge Jordan because they are Arab; but will challenge the Israelis because they are not.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is not true. Israel was not created by the mandate. Britain quit the mandate without ceding any land or sovereignty to Israel. Israel created itself in Palestine by military force. That was illegal, by the way.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, which specific law are you referring.

Ah, not so quick.

Over a hundred years ago you would be correct. Now that is a violation of international law.

The world is trying to move past the wild west of international politics.

(COMMENT)

Specifically, which law are you referring to when you say "violation of international law."

Most Respectfully,
R

People have the right to self determination without external interference. It is illegal to deny a people their rights. Britain and the Zionists were external interferience.

It is illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force. All of Israel's land was taken by Israeli forces against the Palestinian civilian population.

(COMMENT)

The UK was the Mandatory appointed by the Allied Powers through the established mechanisms of the LoNs.

The Zionist is a "Red Herring." You are talking about the Jewish population, on the ground and in place at the time they declared Independence.

While there may be a question concerning the immigration methods, the Israelis did not make an amphibious assault and take the land by force. It was fully coordinated with the Allied Powers, and the LoN (UN), with the termination of the British Mandate. The indigenous population (the Jewish people there at the time) made a Declaration of Independence, they made an application for admission to the United Nations, and defended their nation against armed aggressors. But they were not, no matter how hard you argue, an "external interference." Just more coordinated and competent in their exercise of their right to self determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

The door was never open because the Palestinians never really wanted to coexist side by side with a Jewish state, they wanted the Jewish state destroyed, and they still do, just like their Arab brethren. Check the Hamas charter.

Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now I think you are confused and grasping at straws.

P F Tinmore, et al,

How is it different?

Jordan is a different and separate issue. It is unrelated to Palestine.

(QUESTION)

All those Middle East countries were made the exact same way as Israel, under the same laws, by the same Allied Powers, using the same post-conflict authority, many in the very same time frame.

How is Jordan different if it was created from the same Mandate?

(COMMENT)

It is different because the Palestinians don't want to challenge Jordan because they are Arab; but will challenge the Israelis because they are not.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is not true. Israel was not created by the mandate. Britain quit the mandate without ceding any land or sovereignty to Israel. Israel created itself in Palestine by military force. That was illegal, by the way.

(COMMENT)

I did not say "by the Mandate" --- I said "from the Mandate" as in ---> from the same territory covered by the various Mandates.

If it was illegal, what specific law did they violate? Again, they declared Independence, they made application for admission to the LoN(UN), it was coordinated with the Mandatory, with the knowledge of the Allied Powers.

They defended their territory against armed aggressors, they did not take it by force. It is universally recognized that the 5 Arab Armies attack first in 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

This isn't particularly difficult.

Hashemites (and the tribal Bedouin of the region) have always lived east of the Jordan River.

Palestinians have always lived west of the Jordan River.

It's always been a natural border.

The US and Mexico share a common border - that doesn't make them one country or one people.

I totally agree with Tinmore that Jordan is largely unrelated to the Palestinian issue.

Only that a majority of Jordanians are Palestinians, and that Arafat tried to also create his Palestinian state to replace Jordan. After which the late king Hussein massacred more Palestinians in 3 days in 1971 aka Black September, than Israel did in all it's 60 years. But who's counting when there are no Jews around to point fingers at. Syria's Assad just passed the 60,000 mark last week, eh who cares.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, which specific law are you referring.

Ah, not so quick.


(COMMENT)

Specifically, which law are you referring to when you say "violation of international law."

Most Respectfully,
R

People have the right to self determination without external interference. It is illegal to deny a people their rights. Britain and the Zionists were external interferience.

It is illegal to acquire land by the threat or use of force. All of Israel's land was taken by Israeli forces against the Palestinian civilian population.

(COMMENT)

The UK was the Mandatory appointed by the Allied Powers through the established mechanisms of the LoNs.

The Zionist is a "Red Herring." You are talking about the Jewish population, on the ground and in place at the time they declared Independence.

While there may be a question concerning the immigration methods, the Israelis did not make an amphibious assault and take the land by force. It was fully coordinated with the Allied Powers, and the LoN (UN), with the termination of the British Mandate. The indigenous population (the Jewish people there at the time) made a Declaration of Independence, they made an application for admission to the United Nations, and defended their nation against armed aggressors. But they were not, no matter how hard you argue, an "external interference." Just more coordinated and competent in their exercise of their right to self determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

Zionism is not a red herring. You can't just say Jewish population. There were two different Jewish populations. One was the native Jews who had the right to self determination along with the other Palestinians. None of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence was a native Jew.

Israel was the project of the foreign World Zionist Organization. They imported settlers by the thousands as a part of their plan to take over Palestine. There was no intention for these settlers to be a part of the Palestinian population but to populate their intended Jewish state. There was never any intent for them to become part of the indigenous population.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jordan did not exist until 1921 when Winston Churchill invented it.

Demand Jordan cease to exist because it was created by the same powers that created Israel

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why was almost 80% of the Mandate territory of Palestine given to Arab Jordan?



The French occupation of Syria brought nationalists to Amman where they called on Abdullah, Sharif Hussein’s second son, to recover Syria. In response, Abdullah led a force of tribesman in November 1920 to a small town of Maan in the Kingdom of Hejaz, situated today in southern Lebanon. He waited for three months in Maan for the British reaction which worried them that he might complicate their situation in Transjordan where their presence was only nominal.

Britain finally took a decision by 1921 whereby Palestine was to be included in the formal Palestine Mandate. Moreover, as a gesture to Britain’s wartime promises with Arabs, they decided to exempt the territory of Transjordan from the provisions of mandate related to the Jewish National Home. In return, they asked Abdullah to abandon fighting for Syria and instead took charge of the administration of British-controlled Transjordan.

A British memorandum was presented to the League of Nations in 1922 where it was affirmed that the mandate document and its provisions were not pertinent to the territory separated by the British known as Transjordan. This was 80% of the mandate land which was taken away from the Jews as their prospective homeland to their much agitation.

In a conference of British official in Cairo, it was finalized that Abdullah would be given the government of Transjordan, supervised by the British high commissioner in Palestine. A part of the conference envisaged:

“… establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine west of the Jordan and a separate Arab entity in Palestine east of the Jordan. Abdullah, if installed in authority in Transjordan, could preside over the creation of such an Arab entity.”

In March of 1921, Abdullah signed a formal agreement with the British colonial secretary Winston Churchill along with Lawrence who met in Jerusalem for the purpose.

The British Mandate: Creation of Jordan

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now I think you are confused and grasping at straws.

P F Tinmore, et al,

How is it different?


(QUESTION)

All those Middle East countries were made the exact same way as Israel, under the same laws, by the same Allied Powers, using the same post-conflict authority, many in the very same time frame.

How is Jordan different if it was created from the same Mandate?

(COMMENT)

It is different because the Palestinians don't want to challenge Jordan because they are Arab; but will challenge the Israelis because they are not.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is not true. Israel was not created by the mandate. Britain quit the mandate without ceding any land or sovereignty to Israel. Israel created itself in Palestine by military force. That was illegal, by the way.

(COMMENT)

I did not say "by the Mandate" --- I said "from the Mandate" as in ---> from the same territory covered by the various Mandates.

If it was illegal, what specific law did they violate? Again, they declared Independence, they made application for admission to the LoN(UN), it was coordinated with the Mandatory, with the knowledge of the Allied Powers.

They defended their territory against armed aggressors, they did not take it by force. It is universally recognized that the 5 Arab Armies attack first in 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel declared its independence from the mandate. However, the mandate was not Palestine. The mandate did not own Palestine. Israel could not take anything from the mandate because it did not own anything.