So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Indeed, you are correct.

As usual you don't know what you are talking about. The British specifically denied that there was any acceptance of creating a country for the Judaic people. As reiterated in Churchill's statement in the White Paper of 1922.

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

(COMMENT)

It was never the 1922 intention of the Allied Powers, the Council of the League of Nations, or the Mandatory (HM's Government), that entirety of the Mandate for Palestine was to become a Jewish anything (national Home to a Nation). And indeed, following this statement, in 1923, the carve-out of the Mandate to the East of the Jordan River and to the frontier if Mesopotamia, was to be established as Arab Trans-Jordan; 77% of the Mandate was declared as Arab under the quasi-Autonomy of the Emir.

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION TO
THE UNITED NATIONS
A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947​

91. His Majesty’s Government issued, simultaneously with the Report of the Royal Commission, a statement of policy in which they announced that:

• “The present Mandate became almost unworkable once it was publicly declared to be so by a British Royal commission speaking with the twofold authority conferred on it by its impartiality and its unanimity, and by the Government of the Mandatory Power itself.”
  
  The Mandates Commission therefore advised that the British government should be empowered to explore the possibility of a “new territorial solution”. They considered, however, that it would be unwise to establish two independent states without a further period of mandatory supervision. They therefore recommended that, if the policy of partition was adopted, the Jewish and Arab States should remain under a transitional mandatory regime, either as separate entities or in some form of provisional federation, until they had given sufficient proof of their ability to govern themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

What you leave out is that the Mandate had no authority over the disposition of land. The UN did not have that authority either.

 

[RoccoR]

theliq, et al,

Steven and all the best for you and yours.

Sorry Rocco,but Israel have NO intention of giving ANY LAND back,as is clearly seen by the ferocious building for Jews on Palestinian land moreover when Peace was close.....what did you do,Murder Mr Rabin your Prime Minister....you need say NO MORE......steve,Rocco I'd like to wish you and your family a Happy New Year

(OBSERVATION)

"What's true is this: On June 18-19, 1967, a week after the war, Israel's cabinet met to formulate a stance on the occupied territories. The U.N. General Assembly was about to convene. Israeli leaders feared U.S. pressure to withdraw immediately, and needed to offer an alternative. After intense debate, the cabinet approved a secret message to Washington: Israel was prepared to reach peace treaties with Egypt and Syria "on the basis of the international border and Israel's security needs." Until such treaties, it would stay put. Glaringly, the decision said nothing about the West Bank."

(COMMENT)

The offer did not specifically include the "West Bank" BUT "on the basis of the international border and Israel's security needs." However, during the term of this offer, the Khartoum Conference deliberations resulted in the "3 No's."

Thus the No negotiation kicked the deal off the table.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, that was not all.

What you partisans rarely do, is read the source documents, for example, it clearly states in 1947.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

And NOW --- for the rest of the Story:

You are giving the impression that HM's Government had the Final Say in the matter. That is entirely the WRONG impression you should cast.

154. This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-

• 
  “His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.
  
  It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”
  
  London,
  July 1947

As you can see, HM Government handed the issue to the UN for the settlement of the problem. The UN Special Committee of Palestine submitted Two-Recommendations. What became know as General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

It is difficult for those involved to realize that the cards are stacked against them long term.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, that was not all.

What you partisans rarely do, is read the source documents, for example, it clearly states in 1947.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

And NOW --- for the rest of the Story:

You are giving the impression that HM's Government had the Final Say in the matter. That is entirely the WRONG impression you should cast.

154. This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-

• 
  “His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.
  
  It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”
  
  London,
  July 1947

As you can see, HM Government handed the issue to the UN for the settlement of the problem. The UN Special Committee of Palestine submitted Two-Recommendations. What became know as General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

It does not change what the British believed. It is just your usual BS, Rocco. Just your usual BS. Let us repeat.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Without regard to whatever the British Believed, it was not a decision.

montelatici, et al,

Yes, that was not all.

What you partisans rarely do, is read the source documents, for example, it clearly states in 1947.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

And NOW --- for the rest of the Story:

You are giving the impression that HM's Government had the Final Say in the matter. That is entirely the WRONG impression you should cast.

154. This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-

• 
  “His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.
  
  It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”
  
  London,
  July 1947

As you can see, HM Government handed the issue to the UN for the settlement of the problem. The UN Special Committee of Palestine submitted Two-Recommendations. What became know as General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

It does not change what the British believed. It is just your usual BS, Rocco. Just your usual BS. Let us repeat.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

What the British did was: "We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”

If there is BS here, it is not me. History shows that is exactly what happened.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

You are the bullshitter Rocco, an ignorant one at that. What the British said as the Mandatory power:



"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

 

[Boston1]

I don't think there is any doubt the UN is an extremely bias organization. Even its chair admits it is

Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias | Jewish ...

Ban Ki-moon Admits: UN is Biased Against Israel - Arutz ...

WATCH: UN Chief Admits Bias AGAINST Israel | United with ...

UN chief admits bias against Israel - Israel News, Ynetnews

UN CHIEF BAN KI-MOON ADMITS THE UN HAS BIAS ...

Myths & Facts: Human Rights (Chapter 18) | Jewish Virtual ...

 

[theliq]

I don't think there is any doubt the UN is an extremely bias organization. Even its chair admits it is

Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias | Jewish ...

Ban Ki-moon Admits: UN is Biased Against Israel - Arutz ...

WATCH: UN Chief Admits Bias AGAINST Israel | United with ...

UN chief admits bias against Israel - Israel News, Ynetnews

UN CHIEF BAN KI-MOON ADMITS THE UN HAS BIAS ...

Myths & Facts: Human Rights (Chapter 18) | Jewish Virtual ...

CREEP/S ........ NEVER HEARD YOU MOANING IN 1948 ABOUT THE U.N..Huh the IRONY IS,that you use this Organization as an authority for your actual existence..then ignore and Slag them off,when they try to bring you to HEEL................No one is really bias about Israel,except in the minds of Zionist Terrorist Jews in Israel and elsewhere........... because they never comply to anything the UN or the US says......unless it suits them......anyway....Israel are a Poor Civic Citizen within the World Community.........Always crying Wolf or Anti-Semitism or other such CRAP........Israel are BIAS AGAINST EVERYONE WHEN IT SUITS THEM.........They are such Bores,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[RoccoR]

theliq, Boston1, et al,

Wow... I have ofter heard pro-Palestinians speak out of turn, relative to their "right to use all means necessary'" without regard to the law. They have often defended their right to attack unarmed civilians. They have indeed perfected the art of attacking unarmed civilians since before the time of the Six Day War.

I don't think there is any doubt the UN is an extremely bias organization. Even its chair admits it is

Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias | Jewish ...

Ban Ki-moon Admits: UN is Biased Against Israel - Arutz ...

WATCH: UN Chief Admits Bias AGAINST Israel | United with ...

UN chief admits bias against Israel - Israel News, Ynetnews

UN CHIEF BAN KI-MOON ADMITS THE UN HAS BIAS ...

Myths & Facts: Human Rights (Chapter 18) | Jewish Virtual ...

CREEP/S ........ NEVER HEARD YOU MOANING IN 1948 ABOUT THE U.N..Huh the IRONY IS,that you use this Organization as an authority for your actual existence..then ignore and Slag them off,when they try to bring you to HEEL................No one is really bias about Israel,except in the minds of Zionist Terrorist Jews in Israel and elsewhere........... because they never comply to anything the UN or the US says......unless it suits them......anyway....Israel are a Poor Civic Citizen within the World Community.........Always crying Wolf or Anti-Semitism or other such CRAP........Israel are BIAS AGAINST EVERYONE WHEN IT SUITS THEM.........They are such Bores,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians have an extensive history and a pattern of unchallengeable criminal behavior. Yet, not once have the Palestinians really faced international condemnation and criminal prosecution. Not once have the Hostile Arab Palestinians made to make restitution for the crimes of terrorism they have committed; or the actions that have been established as Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

I find it very damn strange that the International Community, not once --- even after the 1972 Munich Massacre at the Olympics, challenged and held the Hostile Arab Palestinians of the accountable. The International Community allowed the armed Palestinian fedayeen to attempt the assassination of the Jordanian King, not once -- but twice in 1970. Nor were the Hostile Arab Palestinians held accountable for:

Tel Aviv outdoor mall bombing - 25 injured Double Suicide attack, carried out by Palestinian Islamic Jihad together with Fatah.
Jaffa Street bombing First female suicide bomber in Al-Aqsa Intifada, Wafa Idris. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Tayibe bombing Tayibe Hamas claimed responsibility.
Karnei Shomron Mall suicide bombing West Bank PFLP claimed responsibility.[
Maale Adumim - Jerusalem road bombing explosive that was detonated by the driver of the car he was checking. Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Maccabim bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Egged bus 823 bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Ariel hotel lobby bombing PFLP claimed responsibility.
Café Moment bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Egged bus 22 bombing Injured Hamas claimed responsibility.
Egged bus 823 bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
King George Street bombing Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Passover massacre Suicide attack on Passover seder in Park Hotel. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Kiryat HaYovel supermarket bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Allenby Street coffee shop bombing March 30, 2002 Tel Aviv 1 Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Baqa al-Gharbiyah bombing Booby-trapped vehicle that Palestinians tried to sneak into Israel.
Matza restaurant suicide bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Efrat Medical Center Hamas claimed responsibility.
Jerusalem Roadblock bombing Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Yagur Junction bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
3rd Mahane Yehuda Market attack Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Rishon LeZion bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Netanya Market bombing Hamas together with PFLP.
Afula road bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Rothschild Street bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Studio 49 Disco bombing The security guard opened fire on a Palestinian attempting to detonate a car bomb.
Petah Tikva Mall bombing Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Megiddo Junction bus bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Herzliya shawarma restaurant bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Patt Junction Bus Bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
French Hill Junction massacre Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Immanuel bus attack Detonation of an explosive device and shooting. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Neve Shaanan Street bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Hebrew University massacre Bomber was from East Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Meron Junction Bus 361 attack Arab bomber with Israeli citizenship. Hamas claimed responsibility.
1st Umm al-Fahm bombing The Palestinian exploded in a taxi killing himself and wounding an Israeli-Arab driver from Nazareth.
2nd Umm al-Fahm bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Allenby Street bus bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Geha road bombing October 10, 2002 Bar-Ilan interchange, Geha road 1 Hamas claimed responsibility.
Karkur junction suicide bombing Suicide bombers Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Sonol gas station bombing Victims killed while trying to prevent the Palestinian from detonating the bomb. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Kfar Saba shopping mall bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Kiryat Menachem bus bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
​

Both the Permanent Court of Justice, International Court of Justice have never brought the Arab Palestinians to Justice. Even recently, The ICJ denied Israel's right to self-defense saying: Self-defence - Article 51 of the Charter - Attacks against Israel not imputable to a foreign State - Threat invoked to justify the construction of the wall originating within a territory over which Israel exercises control - Article 51 not relevant in the present case. This material error in judgement, rests upon the Armistice Lines that the Palestinians were never a party to, to begin with and that the Armistice Line only remained in force until a peaceful settlement bThe Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was achieved [Article XII (2) of Armistice Agreement] The ICC Court Judges have, under the color of authority, ordered the Prosecutor to re-examine the Mavi Marmara decision --- casting a serious spotlight on the impact of political of the Judges to remain unbiased; given that th Flotilla acted in a manner consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person; by first announcing they intended to run a posted blockade, and then attempting to run the blockade. Similarly, the ICC allowed the Palestinians to file a series of 520 complaints (Frivolous ≈ 73%) for the period 1 August 2014 to 30 June 2015:

• 383 were manifestly outside the Court’s jurisdiction;
• 36 were unrelated to current situations and warranted further analysis;
• 68 were linked to a situation already under analysis; and
• 33 were linked to an investigation or prosecution.
​

There is no question in my mind that the ICJ and the ICC are under the pressure if Islamic Extremist and afraid if the court does nothing, these Islamic Extremist will initiate domestic disturbances in Europe. For this and other reasons, neither court should have jurisdiction as they are contaminated. Neither court attempts to demonstrate the slightest bit of integrity and is a demonstrated failure to observe standards or show due honesty. They have shaken the foundation of credibility once held by the court. This will create a crisis in which the single-sided prosecution of the Jewish State in the selective enforcement of the ICC, will bring the relevance of the court into question.

The UNRWA appears to have had employees with very close (if not direct) connections with HAMAS. Over 50% of the Gaza Population are receiving some sort of handout from the UNRWA. That is kind of hard to believe since less than 3% were even old enough to have been around during the Israeli attack by the Arab League Forces in 1948-49 (War of Independence).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

As stated over and over again, terrorist versus freedom fighter is based on perspective. The Muhajedin fighting the Russian occupation forces were considered freedom fighters by the U.S. and became became terrorists almost overnight when they turned on the U.S. occupation forces.

The actions of occupied or colonized people fighting to achieve regain land they were dispossessed of by a foreign invader is not comparable to performing terrorist acts in lands the perpetrator or a recent ancestor has immigrated to. The non-white South Africans had every right to attack their white rulers and, in fact, those freedom fighters (labeled as terrorists by Apartheid regime and the U.S. then, much like the Palestinians are labeled terrorists by the Zionist regime and the U.S. now) are national heroes in South Africa today.


Regarding the status of Palestinian refugees.

The eviction and dispossession of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the Jews was as a direct result of an illegal action of the UN. The Palestine Commission at the U.N. Security Council 253rd Meeting (S/PV.253), February 24, 1948 determined that the partition plan should be implemented against the will of the majority population of Palestine by force. The U.N. had never done anything of the sort before and has never done anything of the sort since. The British made it clear that they would not implement the partition plan, given the rejection of it by the majority of the population of Palestine.

“if the Assembly should recommend a policy which is not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, the United Kingdom Government would not feel able to implement it.”

Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestinian Question 2nd Meeting, September 26, 1947,

For this reason the UN made the refugee status of the Palestinians apply to descendants of the male line until the Palestinians are made whole.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Without regard to whatever the British Believed, it was not a decision.

montelatici, et al,

Yes, that was not all.

What you partisans rarely do, is read the source documents, for example, it clearly states in 1947.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

And NOW --- for the rest of the Story:

You are giving the impression that HM's Government had the Final Say in the matter. That is entirely the WRONG impression you should cast.

154. This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-

• 
  “His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.
  
  It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”
  
  London,
  July 1947

As you can see, HM Government handed the issue to the UN for the settlement of the problem. The UN Special Committee of Palestine submitted Two-Recommendations. What became know as General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

It does not change what the British believed. It is just your usual BS, Rocco. Just your usual BS. Let us repeat.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

What the British did was: "We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”

If there is BS here, it is not me. History shows that is exactly what happened.

Most Respectfully,
R

They also stated that they would not support any solution that was not agreed upon by both sides.

 

[P F Tinmore]

theliq, Boston1, et al,

Wow... I have ofter heard pro-Palestinians speak out of turn, relative to their "right to use all means necessary'" without regard to the law. They have often defended their right to attack unarmed civilians. They have indeed perfected the art of attacking unarmed civilians since before the time of the Six Day War.

I don't think there is any doubt the UN is an extremely bias organization. Even its chair admits it is

Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias | Jewish ...

Ban Ki-moon Admits: UN is Biased Against Israel - Arutz ...

WATCH: UN Chief Admits Bias AGAINST Israel | United with ...

UN chief admits bias against Israel - Israel News, Ynetnews

UN CHIEF BAN KI-MOON ADMITS THE UN HAS BIAS ...

Myths & Facts: Human Rights (Chapter 18) | Jewish Virtual ...

CREEP/S ........ NEVER HEARD YOU MOANING IN 1948 ABOUT THE U.N..Huh the IRONY IS,that you use this Organization as an authority for your actual existence..then ignore and Slag them off,when they try to bring you to HEEL................No one is really bias about Israel,except in the minds of Zionist Terrorist Jews in Israel and elsewhere........... because they never comply to anything the UN or the US says......unless it suits them......anyway....Israel are a Poor Civic Citizen within the World Community.........Always crying Wolf or Anti-Semitism or other such CRAP........Israel are BIAS AGAINST EVERYONE WHEN IT SUITS THEM.........They are such Bores,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians have an extensive history and a pattern of unchallengeable criminal behavior. Yet, not once have the Palestinians really faced international condemnation and criminal prosecution. Not once have the Hostile Arab Palestinians made to make restitution for the crimes of terrorism they have committed; or the actions that have been established as Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

I find it very damn strange that the International Community, not once --- even after the 1972 Munich Massacre at the Olympics, challenged and held the Hostile Arab Palestinians of the accountable. The International Community allowed the armed Palestinian fedayeen to attempt the assassination of the Jordanian King, not once -- but twice in 1970. Nor were the Hostile Arab Palestinians held accountable for:

Tel Aviv outdoor mall bombing - 25 injured Double Suicide attack, carried out by Palestinian Islamic Jihad together with Fatah.
Jaffa Street bombing First female suicide bomber in Al-Aqsa Intifada, Wafa Idris. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Tayibe bombing Tayibe Hamas claimed responsibility.
Karnei Shomron Mall suicide bombing West Bank PFLP claimed responsibility.[
Maale Adumim - Jerusalem road bombing explosive that was detonated by the driver of the car he was checking. Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Maccabim bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Yeshivat Beit Yisrael massacre Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Egged bus 823 bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Ariel hotel lobby bombing PFLP claimed responsibility.
Café Moment bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Egged bus 22 bombing Injured Hamas claimed responsibility.
Egged bus 823 bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
King George Street bombing Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Passover massacre Suicide attack on Passover seder in Park Hotel. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Kiryat HaYovel supermarket bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Allenby Street coffee shop bombing March 30, 2002 Tel Aviv 1 Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Baqa al-Gharbiyah bombing Booby-trapped vehicle that Palestinians tried to sneak into Israel.
Matza restaurant suicide bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Efrat Medical Center Hamas claimed responsibility.
Jerusalem Roadblock bombing Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Yagur Junction bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
3rd Mahane Yehuda Market attack Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Rishon LeZion bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Netanya Market bombing Hamas together with PFLP.
Afula road bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Rothschild Street bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Studio 49 Disco bombing The security guard opened fire on a Palestinian attempting to detonate a car bomb.
Petah Tikva Mall bombing Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Megiddo Junction bus bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Herzliya shawarma restaurant bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Patt Junction Bus Bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
French Hill Junction massacre Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
Immanuel bus attack Detonation of an explosive device and shooting. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Neve Shaanan Street bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Hebrew University massacre Bomber was from East Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Meron Junction Bus 361 attack Arab bomber with Israeli citizenship. Hamas claimed responsibility.
1st Umm al-Fahm bombing The Palestinian exploded in a taxi killing himself and wounding an Israeli-Arab driver from Nazareth.
2nd Umm al-Fahm bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Allenby Street bus bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
Geha road bombing October 10, 2002 Bar-Ilan interchange, Geha road 1 Hamas claimed responsibility.
Karkur junction suicide bombing Suicide bombers Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Sonol gas station bombing Victims killed while trying to prevent the Palestinian from detonating the bomb. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Kfar Saba shopping mall bombing Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Kiryat Menachem bus bombing Hamas claimed responsibility.
​

Both the Permanent Court of Justice, International Court of Justice have never brought the Arab Palestinians to Justice. Even recently, The ICJ denied Israel's right to self-defense saying: Self-defence - Article 51 of the Charter - Attacks against Israel not imputable to a foreign State - Threat invoked to justify the construction of the wall originating within a territory over which Israel exercises control - Article 51 not relevant in the present case. This material error in judgement, rests upon the Armistice Lines that the Palestinians were never a party to, to begin with and that the Armistice Line only remained in force until a peaceful settlement bThe Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was achieved [Article XII (2) of Armistice Agreement] The ICC Court Judges have, under the color of authority, ordered the Prosecutor to re-examine the Mavi Marmara decision --- casting a serious spotlight on the impact of political of the Judges to remain unbiased; given that th Flotilla acted in a manner consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person; by first announcing they intended to run a posted blockade, and then attempting to run the blockade. Similarly, the ICC allowed the Palestinians to file a series of 520 complaints (Frivolous ≈ 73%) for the period 1 August 2014 to 30 June 2015:

• 383 were manifestly outside the Court’s jurisdiction;
• 36 were unrelated to current situations and warranted further analysis;
• 68 were linked to a situation already under analysis; and
• 33 were linked to an investigation or prosecution.
​

There is no question in my mind that the ICJ and the ICC are under the pressure if Islamic Extremist and afraid if the court does nothing, these Islamic Extremist will initiate domestic disturbances in Europe. For this and other reasons, neither court should have jurisdiction as they are contaminated. Neither court attempts to demonstrate the slightest bit of integrity and is a demonstrated failure to observe standards or show due honesty. They have shaken the foundation of credibility once held by the court. This will create a crisis in which the single-sided prosecution of the Jewish State in the selective enforcement of the ICC, will bring the relevance of the court into question.

The UNRWA appears to have had employees with very close (if not direct) connections with HAMAS. Over 50% of the Gaza Population are receiving some sort of handout from the UNRWA. That is kind of hard to believe since less than 3% were even old enough to have been around during the Israeli attack by the Arab League Forces in 1948-49 (War of Independence).

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have an extensive history and a pattern of unchallengeable criminal behavior.​

The Palestinians do not cross borders to attack and they do not attack protected persons.

So what criminal behavior are you talking about?

 

[hadit]

The bottom line here remains, the Israelis are going nowhere. They have the weaponry to destroy themselves along with whomever is attacking them, and will turn the entire area into glass if need be. It is obvious that the Arab nations surrounding her cannot eliminate her by force without themselves being destroyed in the process. This makes Israel the strong entity in the area, despite her tiny size. The world carved out a homeland for the Jews in that area, and that is where they will stay. Arguing over what the British may have said or intended in 1922 is as pertinent as arguing that the Roman occupation of the area is what really needs to be reversed and the whole place be handed over to the Israelis for their use.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians do not cross borders to attack and they do not attack protected persons.

So what criminal behavior are you talking about?

What? In what world are 13 year old boys and babies in strollers at bus stops acceptable targets for attacks? On what planet are those not criminal acts? You are using word games and technicalities of legal meanings of words to absolve Palestinians of clear wrong doing. Vile.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In drawing a consensus, rarely is there a collective where everyone agrees. In high political management we say Positives, Concerns, Ideas, Solutions (PCIS)... Unless you have a body of "yes men" or a "corrupt program" where the driving force is a hidden agenda, you are not going to address anything of importance where a large body will immediately agree on any give position.

“I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” President Harry Truman, quoted in “Anti Zionism”, ed. by Teikener, Abed-Rabbo & Mezvinsky.
​

montelatici, et al,

Without regard to whatever the British Believed, it was not a decision.

montelatici, et al,

Yes, that was not all.

What you partisans rarely do, is read the source documents, for example, it clearly states in 1947.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

And NOW --- for the rest of the Story:

You are giving the impression that HM's Government had the Final Say in the matter. That is entirely the WRONG impression you should cast.

154. This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-

• 
  “His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.
  
  It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”
  
  London,
  July 1947

As you can see, HM Government handed the issue to the UN for the settlement of the problem. The UN Special Committee of Palestine submitted Two-Recommendations. What became know as General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

It does not change what the British believed. It is just your usual BS, Rocco. Just your usual BS. Let us repeat.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

What the British did was: "We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”

If there is BS here, it is not me. History shows that is exactly what happened.

Most Respectfully,
R

They also stated that they would not support any solution that was not agreed upon by both sides.

(COMMENT)

It was merely 6-months before the General Assembly adopted the Majority plan (Partition), submitted by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), that the British position (presented to the House of Commons) was stated fairly clear:

152. His Majesty’s Government considered that these proposals were consistent with the terms both of the League Mandate and of Article 76 of the United Nations Charter. They also looked forward to an early termination of the trust:

“His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine themselves merely because Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. The proposals contained in the present memorandum are designed to give the two peoples and opportunity of demonstrating their ability to work together for the good of Palestine as a whole and so providing a stable foundation for an independent State.”
​

153. The latest British proposals were rejected both by the Arab Delegations (which include, at the second part of the London conference, a Delegation representing the Palestine Arab Higher Executive), and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Thereupon the Mandatory decided to refer the problem to the United Nations.
​

The UNSCOP Proposal, because it was NOT unanimous accepted, had two different forces driving it. The "Arab Rejection" was based on the three legged stool, with one one leg rooted in the argument that the based on population and private ownership; one leg based on the the ideas that the Arabs were the long standing inhabitance and indigenous population (associated with self-determination); and the final leg was based on the the various perceived promises of the assumption of regional power as an independent Arab State.

The Arabs of Palestine were contesting the two-state solution; only from the perspective that the did not get the Lion's Share of the territory. They has absolutely no sympathy at all --- or felt any moral obligation to protect and preserve the Jewish People that had been persecuted under the color of law all across Europe, North Africa, and the Mediterranean; including England. Whether we talk about the 250 C.E. Carthage Expulsion; the 722 C.E. Byzantium Rule that Judaism was Outlawed; 1096 C.E. when in Northern France and Germany an estimated 30% of the Jewish Population was Massacred; between 1218 C.E. and 1236 C.E. England Jews Forced to Wear Badges,
the Jews fell prey to the Rome Inquisition, or when France Forced Conversion/Massacre; or when Jews were periodically burned alive for the pleasure of German Princes (1270, 1285, 1308, 1349 C.E.); AND all during the 1400 thru 1800's the expulsions, burnings, mob attacks and slaughter which took place that brought the Allied Powers to the conclusion that the best Humanitarian effort would be to create a Jewish National Home (Balfour Declaration) from which the Jewish people would be protect and could defend themselves from the corrupt, malfeasant and barbaric rules of the time. And of course, between the time the Balfour Declaration was publish until the the end of WWII, the Jewish has to endure one further indignity in the wholesale genocide effort in which approximately six million Jews were killed Nazi regime with the assistance of other European and Arab collaborators. As we all know, the Palestinian Black Hand of the late 1920's thru 1930's and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (names sake for the rocket built in Gaza to launch against Israelis) conducted jihadist activities and attack against Jewish immigrants encouraged to all Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home in accordance with the Mandate.

In any major decision, there will be opposing points of view. At some point, absent effective and exclusive territorial control, the Arab must at some point, accept the outcome they have crafted for themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't think there is any doubt the UN is an extremely bias organization. Even its chair admits it is

Ban Ki-moon Admits United Nations Anti-Israel Bias | Jewish ...

Ban Ki-moon Admits: UN is Biased Against Israel - Arutz ...

WATCH: UN Chief Admits Bias AGAINST Israel | United with ...

UN chief admits bias against Israel - Israel News, Ynetnews

UN CHIEF BAN KI-MOON ADMITS THE UN HAS BIAS ...

Myths & Facts: Human Rights (Chapter 18) | Jewish Virtual ...

Posting the same story 5 times, is not like posting 5 separate reports on the same issue. Ban Ki-moon is a US puppet. How he became General Secretary is a joke. Just like his comment about UN bias towards Israel. I couldn't help notice he doesn't say how that bias is manifested.

I proved to you there was no bias and not only do you refuse to comment on my evidence, you continue to push this nonsense in spite of the evidence I presented.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense. Rule 6. Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

The Palestinians do not cross borders to attack and they do not attack protected persons.

So what criminal behavior are you talking about?

What? In what world are 13 year old boys and babies in strollers at bus stops acceptable targets for attacks? On what planet are those not criminal acts? You are using word games and technicalities of legal meanings of words to absolve Palestinians of clear wrong doing. Vile.

(COMMENT)

Just as I said before, the Palestinians cannot openly target and specifically attack "civilians" whether it is an international conflict {Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I,} or a non-International Conflict {Article 13(3) of Additional Protocol II}.


See Partical History: See Links
List of Palestinian suicide attacks
Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada
It does not go back as far as the 1972 Massacre in Munich at the Winter Olympics

It is actually an example of you attempted to justify the attacks on unarmed civilians. There is no exemption except for the one I previously posted, that allows for Palestinian Jihadist, terrorist, insurgent, and irregular forces to directly target, or by an act of depraved indifference, unarmed or innocent civilians.

Ma'ale Adumim attempted bombing October 11, 2015 Ma'ale Adumim --- Palestinian female bomber detonates a bomb in her car after being stopped by traffic cops, on the road from Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In drawing a consensus, rarely is there a collective where everyone agrees. In high political management we say Positives, Concerns, Ideas, Solutions (PCIS)... Unless you have a body of "yes men" or a "corrupt program" where the driving force is a hidden agenda, you are not going to address anything of importance where a large body will immediately agree on any give position.

“I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” President Harry Truman, quoted in “Anti Zionism”, ed. by Teikener, Abed-Rabbo & Mezvinsky.
​

montelatici, et al,

Without regard to whatever the British Believed, it was not a decision.

montelatici, et al,

Yes, that was not all.

What you partisans rarely do, is read the source documents, for example, it clearly states in 1947.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

And NOW --- for the rest of the Story:

You are giving the impression that HM's Government had the Final Say in the matter. That is entirely the WRONG impression you should cast.

154. This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-

• 
  “His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.
  
  It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”
  
  London,
  July 1947

As you can see, HM Government handed the issue to the UN for the settlement of the problem. The UN Special Committee of Palestine submitted Two-Recommendations. What became know as General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

It does not change what the British believed. It is just your usual BS, Rocco. Just your usual BS. Let us repeat.

"It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State."

(COMMENT)

What the British did was: "We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”

If there is BS here, it is not me. History shows that is exactly what happened.

Most Respectfully,
R

They also stated that they would not support any solution that was not agreed upon by both sides.

(COMMENT)

It was merely 6-months before the General Assembly adopted the Majority plan (Partition), submitted by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), that the British position (presented to the House of Commons) was stated fairly clear:

152. His Majesty’s Government considered that these proposals were consistent with the terms both of the League Mandate and of Article 76 of the United Nations Charter. They also looked forward to an early termination of the trust:

“His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine themselves merely because Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. The proposals contained in the present memorandum are designed to give the two peoples and opportunity of demonstrating their ability to work together for the good of Palestine as a whole and so providing a stable foundation for an independent State.”
​

153. The latest British proposals were rejected both by the Arab Delegations (which include, at the second part of the London conference, a Delegation representing the Palestine Arab Higher Executive), and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Thereupon the Mandatory decided to refer the problem to the United Nations.​

The UNSCOP Proposal, because it was NOT unanimous accepted, had two different forces driving it. The "Arab Rejection" was based on the three legged stool, with one one leg rooted in the argument that the based on population and private ownership; one leg based on the the ideas that the Arabs were the long standing inhabitance and indigenous population (associated with self-determination); and the final leg was based on the the various perceived promises of the assumption of regional power as an independent Arab State.

The Arabs of Palestine were contesting the two-state solution; only from the perspective that the did not get the Lion's Share of the territory. They has absolutely no sympathy at all --- or felt any moral obligation to protect and preserve the Jewish People that had been persecuted under the color of law all across Europe, North Africa, and the Mediterranean; including England. Whether we talk about the 250 C.E. Carthage Expulsion; the 722 C.E. Byzantium Rule that Judaism was Outlawed; 1096 C.E. when in Northern France and Germany an estimated 30% of the Jewish Population was Massacred; between 1218 C.E. and 1236 C.E. England Jews Forced to Wear Badges,
the Jews fell prey to the Rome Inquisition, or when France Forced Conversion/Massacre; or when Jews were periodically burned alive for the pleasure of German Princes (1270, 1285, 1308, 1349 C.E.); AND all during the 1400 thru 1800's the expulsions, burnings, mob attacks and slaughter which took place that brought the Allied Powers to the conclusion that the best Humanitarian effort would be to create a Jewish National Home (Balfour Declaration) from which the Jewish people would be protect and could defend themselves from the corrupt, malfeasant and barbaric rules of the time. And of course, between the time the Balfour Declaration was publish until the the end of WWII, the Jewish has to endure one further indignity in the wholesale genocide effort in which approximately six million Jews were killed Nazi regime with the assistance of other European and Arab collaborators. As we all know, the Palestinian Black Hand of the late 1920's thru 1930's and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (names sake for the rocket built in Gaza to launch against Israelis) conducted jihadist activities and attack against Jewish immigrants encouraged to all Jews who were willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home in accordance with the Mandate.

In any major decision, there will be opposing points of view. At some point, absent effective and exclusive territorial control, the Arab must at some point, accept the outcome they have crafted for themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arabs of Palestine were contesting the two-state solution; only from the perspective that the did not get the Lion's Share of the territory.​

Not true. They objected giving half of their country to foreign colonists.

You need to read up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense. Rule 6. Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

The Palestinians do not cross borders to attack and they do not attack protected persons.

So what criminal behavior are you talking about?

What? In what world are 13 year old boys and babies in strollers at bus stops acceptable targets for attacks? On what planet are those not criminal acts? You are using word games and technicalities of legal meanings of words to absolve Palestinians of clear wrong doing. Vile.

(COMMENT)

Just as I said before, the Palestinians cannot openly target and specifically attack "civilians" whether it is an international conflict {Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I,} or a non-International Conflict {Article 13(3) of Additional Protocol II}.


See Partical History: See Links
List of Palestinian suicide attacks
Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada
It does not go back as far as the 1972 Massacre in Munich at the Winter Olympics

It is actually an example of you attempted to justify the attacks on unarmed civilians. There is no exemption except for the one I previously posted, that allows for Palestinian Jihadist, terrorist, insurgent, and irregular forces to directly target, or by an act of depraved indifference, unarmed or innocent civilians.

Ma'ale Adumim attempted bombing October 11, 2015 Ma'ale Adumim --- Palestinian female bomber detonates a bomb in her car after being stopped by traffic cops, on the road from Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem.



Most Respectfully,
R

Settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the occupation. Without the settlers Israel would be no more than an office in Tel Aviv, if that.