The invasion of Palestine

[toastman]

Palestine before 1948 - YouTube

Israel 2012! - YouTube

 

[Hossfly]

Palestine before 1948 - YouTube

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWwa-UJcxWw]Tel Aviv History: Urban Planning 1920s - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niwsdBDldo0]Tel Aviv - 1930's - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

As Palestinian resistance to the expansion of the Yishuv was growing, so was the Zionist determination to implement the doctrine of separation between the Jewish community and the Palestinian population in preparation for the eventual establishment of a Jewish state.

Yishuv leaders such as David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), born in Poland as David Gruen and who arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel, strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw the link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place (1936-39), the Zionists saw a chance and a reason for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military threats.

The Zionist Project - 1948

 

[Hossfly]

As Palestinian resistance to the expansion of the Yishuv was growing, so was the Zionist determination to implement the doctrine of separation between the Jewish community and the Palestinian population in preparation for the eventual establishment of a Jewish state.

Yishuv leaders such as David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), born in Poland as David Gruen and who arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel, strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw the link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place (1936-39), the Zionists saw a chance and a reason for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military threats.

The Zionist Project - 1948

Why, Tinnie, no more You Tubes? Just the same old "The Zionist Project" that you have posted many times before. You can, of course, bring it up as many times as you like to, but I am for taking the word of Winston Churchill who said that the Arabs arrived in droves from their impoverished countries when the Jews had jobs for them. Do you really see any difference from what we are seeing today with the poor Hispanics coming north for jobs in American and the poor Arabs and others from Muslim countries going to Europe for jobs? Surely, Tinnie, wherever you happen to live now once you emigrated here from Gaza, you must have seen some population changes in your own town.

 

[irosie91]

THE ZIONIST PROJECT

the "PROJECT" the DREADFUL PROJECT !~!~!

ok here it is THE PROJECT

1) survive the genocide at the hands of the


"HOLY ISA RESPECTERS" <<< from algeria to the holy
Roman Empire to the filth of the AYATOILETS

(no matter how much it annoys them)

 

[editec]

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

The Zionist Project - 1948
--------------
The plan was to drive the Palestinians out and replace them with Jewish settlers.

OPh its way more complex than that.

The original Zionists were mostly socialists.

The original Zionists didn't expect to found their own nation.

The original Zionists worked in collaboration with the Palestinians and BOUGHT the land they lived on.

Things truly started to go downhill much thanks to the BALFOUR Declaration that was signed druing WWI.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

The Zionist Project - 1948
--------------
The plan was to drive the Palestinians out and replace them with Jewish settlers.

OPh its way more complex than that.

The original Zionists were mostly socialists.

The original Zionists didn't expect to found their own nation.

The original Zionists worked in collaboration with the Palestinians and BOUGHT the land they lived on.

Things truly started to go downhill much thanks to the BALFOUR Declaration that was signed druing WWI.

That is true. There was little animosity between the different religions until it became apparent that there was a sinister motive behind the immigration of the Jews into Palestine.

 

[irosie91]

ZIONISM is as old as is judaism The comment that the "original zionists" were "socialists" really has
no meaning although there were MANY MANY zionists
who were attracted to the concepts of SOCIALISM.

The statement that zionism was INVENTED in eastern-europe in the 1800s is entirely incorrect and
is simply a prominent as aspect of islamo nazi
propaganda. The RETURN OF JEWS TO ZION --
is recommended by the rapist pig muhummad
himself in the koran according to the writers of the koran ----thus tinnie is claiming that muhummad was
from eastern europe and was a socialist of the 1800s

zionism is THE RETURN OF JEWS TO ZION

movements in that direction have existed over the
past 2000 years. ------but thwarted by the
ISA RESPECTERS who stole all of the land and engaged in endless rape and murder -----
decimating the jewish population and spreading their
stinking shit thruout the land until it became a cesspit
like the present day lands populated the ass and shit
lickers of the rapist pig. NAZISM was invented in
zion----but a disgusting isa respecter named
CONSTANTINE-----only a few of the spawn of that
lump of shit----continue to adhere to the filth of
constantine---sherri is one----MOST HAVE REPUDIATED the filth. HOWEVER the ass lickers
of muhummad embraced it from their inception and
still do

 

[irosie91]

Herod was an edomite some historians believe his
mother was an ernest convert to Judaism ----as were
MANY EDOMITES As a nation the edomites tended to assimilate into the jewish nation and simply became jews. There is some history that he either grew up or spent lots of his youth in rome-----where he got a kind of HELLENISTIC education and it is also
true that he was a ROMAN CHOICE. His "kingship"--strictly speaking according to jewish law----was not
justified----he was of no "royal line"--
The temple he built was not built with "roman money" as one of the pimps on this board claims.

It was built because took as his PROJECT as king of
Israel to rebuild the temple which had been destroyed
and it was built with the labor and funds of jews.

ALL IN ALL --Herod was not a favorite amongst jews
as a king for the reasons that he was PRO ROME --and not actually a person of any royal line---and simply not put in power by jews ---but by rome---
Remember rome? THE WHORE OF BABYLON in
revelations gee--this is simple stuff----even a sunday school nazi like sherri SHOULD KNOW

 

[irosie91]

PS the EDOMITES as a nation are no longer extant--
they were NOT "ARABS"

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I wonder about this "sinister" motive (threatening or suggesting malevolence, menace, or harm). One needs only look at the developments in their society and compare it to the infrastructure, the parliamentary democracy, the education system, internal research and development, industry and commerce, of the non-Israeli countries and areas around it. All this could have been shared with the Palestinians had they not turned violent.

That is true. There was little animosity between the different religions until it became apparent that there was a sinister motive behind the immigration of the Jews into Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There was no question, between Article 22 of the Covenant, the Treaty of Sevre, the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate what the Allied intentions were behind the immigration: "by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." (Article 95, Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Turkey) It is where the land came from, it was the original intention behind the treaty for that land, and it was the transfer of sovereignty for the purposes intended.

There was no "sinister motive." It was done by the light of day by the powers that had control over the entire territory and region. The land was Ottoman/Turkey - and they decided to accept any decisions the Allied Powers made in relation to the Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq), and whatever they chose to call Palestine (the remainder).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[editec]

ZIONISM is as old as is judaism The comment that the "original zionists" were "socialists" really has
no meaning although there were MANY MANY zionists
who were attracted to the concepts of SOCIALISM.

Yup.

Throw five socialists in a room and you'll get at least five (likely more) versions of what that term even means.

I actually admire the first wave of Zionists.

They were not land grabbers, they bought the land and they made a life for themselves without screwing over the existing population of Palestinians.


There really wasn't much of a problem between Zionists and Moslems until the signing of the BALFOUR declaration.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I wonder about this "sinister" motive (threatening or suggesting malevolence, menace, or harm). One needs only look at the developments in their society and compare it to the infrastructure, the parliamentary democracy, the education system, internal research and development, industry and commerce, of the non-Israeli countries and areas around it. All this could have been shared with the Palestinians had they not turned violent.

That is true. There was little animosity between the different religions until it became apparent that there was a sinister motive behind the immigration of the Jews into Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There was no question, between Article 22 of the Covenant, the Treaty of Sevre, the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate what the Allied intentions were behind the immigration: "by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." (Article 95, Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Turkey) It is where the land came from, it was the original intention behind the treaty for that land, and it was the transfer of sovereignty for the purposes intended.

There was no "sinister motive." It was done by the light of day by the powers that had control over the entire territory and region. The land was Ottoman/Turkey - and they decided to accept any decisions the Allied Powers made in relation to the Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq), and whatever they chose to call Palestine (the remainder).

Most Respectfully,
R

The problem with all that is that what was said in the LoN Covenant and what happened on the ground were different. If Britain had not violated the covenant there would not have been war for a hundred years.

 

[irosie91]

there was plenty of problems between the different religions in palestine and thruout the
middle east -----FOR MILLENIA -----the problems did not start with the balfour declaration---the recent problems started when the OTTOMANS made it legal ----CONTRARY TO THE SHIT
OF SHARIAH to own land and to BUY IT Another big problem that the OTTOMANS
did is they did not allow the enslavement of orphaned non muslims in SOME PARTS of the
empire------but ----they neglected other parts and the SHAYKHS went rignt on raping
anyway to the delight of nazi shit like sherri who still supports that rule if it impacts on jewish
children. The good news is that the OTTOMANs by their alterations in the shit of shariah---
galvanized the ZIONIST MOVEMENT that began in the EARLY 1800s The mitigation of the
shit of shariah ----by the OTTOMANS----was far more important in the ZIONIST MOVEMENT than was the balfour declaration and the REACTION TO THE PRESENCE OF JEWS with the violence and mutilations that so delight the ISA RESPECTING WHORE-----long precedes 1897

I am always impressed by nazi shit who claim zionism "BEGAN" in 1897 by Herzl---in fact
the CITY RISHON L'TZION (early comers to ZION) was founded in 1882 when Herzl was something life five years old You islamo nazis are really stupid

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand this insistance that the UK "violated the covenant."

P F Tinmore, et al,

I wonder about this "sinister" motive (threatening or suggesting malevolence, menace, or harm). One needs only look at the developments in their society and compare it to the infrastructure, the parliamentary democracy, the education system, internal research and development, industry and commerce, of the non-Israeli countries and areas around it. All this could have been shared with the Palestinians had they not turned violent.

That is true. There was little animosity between the different religions until it became apparent that there was a sinister motive behind the immigration of the Jews into Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There was no question, between Article 22 of the Covenant, the Treaty of Sevre, the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate what the Allied intentions were behind the immigration: "by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." (Article 95, Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Turkey) It is where the land came from, it was the original intention behind the treaty for that land, and it was the transfer of sovereignty for the purposes intended.

There was no "sinister motive." It was done by the light of day by the powers that had control over the entire territory and region. The land was Ottoman/Turkey - and they decided to accept any decisions the Allied Powers made in relation to the Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq), and whatever they chose to call Palestine (the remainder).

Most Respectfully,
R

The problem with all that is that what was said in the LoN Covenant and what happened on the ground were different. If Britain had not violated the covenant there would not have been war for a hundred years.

(COMMENT)

First off, the UK didn't make the "offer" in the Mandate, the Allied Powers did, IAW the Covenant and the Treaty. Over three-quarters (75%) of the Mandate, known as Palestine, went to the Arabs/Palestinians. And only a Little more than half of the remainder went to the Israelis; and that was by GA offer in Resolution 181, not by the UK.

Since the Arabs/Palestinians opted to resolve their differences though violence, they will get even less than was originally allocated, because they lost the armed conflicts. While they West Bank and Gaza may, eventually, get statehood, there was other territory that they could have had, but have since lost.

This is by no means, the fault of the UK. This was purely poor brinksmanship on the part of the Palestinian/Arab.

There is the possibility of compensation, restitution, and even reparations. But every day the Palestinians pursue violence as a means of settlement, reduces the probability of equity.

No matter how you shape it, the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Treaty, the Declaration, the Mandate, and Resolution, Independence, the War, and War --- international terrorism, and more War, more insurgency and terrorism, ----> all played a part in the outcome. And the Palestinians/Arabs and the alliance they made with all the various Arab nations that supported the continuation of insurgency and terrorism ---> played a major role outcomes (as unfavorable they are to the Palestinian people). And the Palestinian People, themselves, who gave both real and political support to the furtherance of war, insurgency, and terrorism, must take a certain amount of responsibility for their actions; individually and governmentally.

They ----> and only they ----> chose to ignore the basic principles of settling their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. And when their alternative ---> "violence" and non-peaceful means failed (to achieve their desired results), they start crying that everyone violated the covenant. (History is very clear on this point.) If the Arabs in collusion with the Palestinians, had not kicked off the 1973 Yom Kipper War, the Israelis would still be at the 1967 lines; they would be no need for a withdraw to the '67 borders. But the Arab/Palestinian and associated Arab League Nations, were greedy. And yet, the Arab/Palestinian still denies any responsibility for that war.

And again I say, the Palestinian People, themselves, who gave both real and political support to the furtherance of war, insurgency, and terrorism, must take a certain amount of responsibility for their actions; individually and governmentally.

It takes two to tango in war. And the Arab/Palestinian, in each and every case, set the conditions for war.

I assure you that if the 5 Arab Armies had in the past, or does at any point in the future, ----> win, they would not be a benevolent government acting in the best interest of the people. If they win in the future, they will not be a productive member of the international community. The Palestinians will be a Proxy nation of Iran, which I am sure they rest of the CCASG (Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf) will fully appreciate. They will be a major headache in assisting with Iran's clear interference in the domestic affairs of Arab countries, and destabilization efforts in the security of GCC members. It will not be long before the GCC will covertly start assisting Israel as a means of reducing the influence of Iran and the Shi'ite power base.

The achievement of a Palestinian success is now more dangerous to the GCC than the continuation of the Israeli state.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand this insistance that the UK "violated the covenant."

P F Tinmore, et al,

I wonder about this "sinister" motive (threatening or suggesting malevolence, menace, or harm). One needs only look at the developments in their society and compare it to the infrastructure, the parliamentary democracy, the education system, internal research and development, industry and commerce, of the non-Israeli countries and areas around it. All this could have been shared with the Palestinians had they not turned violent.


(COMMENT)

There was no question, between Article 22 of the Covenant, the Treaty of Sevre, the Balfour Declaration, and the Mandate what the Allied intentions were behind the immigration: "by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." (Article 95, Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Turkey) It is where the land came from, it was the original intention behind the treaty for that land, and it was the transfer of sovereignty for the purposes intended.

There was no "sinister motive." It was done by the light of day by the powers that had control over the entire territory and region. The land was Ottoman/Turkey - and they decided to accept any decisions the Allied Powers made in relation to the Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq), and whatever they chose to call Palestine (the remainder).

Most Respectfully,
R

The problem with all that is that what was said in the LoN Covenant and what happened on the ground were different. If Britain had not violated the covenant there would not have been war for a hundred years.

(COMMENT)

First off, the UK didn't make the "offer" in the Mandate, the Allied Powers did, IAW the Covenant and the Treaty. Over three-quarters (75%) of the Mandate, known as Palestine, went to the Arabs/Palestinians. And only a Little more than half of the remainder went to the Israelis; and that was by GA offer in Resolution 181, not by the UK.

Since the Arabs/Palestinians opted to resolve their differences though violence, they will get even less than was originally allocated, because they lost the armed conflicts. While they West Bank and Gaza may, eventually, get statehood, there was other territory that they could have had, but have since lost.

This is by no means, the fault of the UK. This was purely poor brinksmanship on the part of the Palestinian/Arab.

There is the possibility of compensation, restitution, and even reparations. But every day the Palestinians pursue violence as a means of settlement, reduces the probability of equity.

No matter how you shape it, the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Treaty, the Declaration, the Mandate, and Resolution, Independence, the War, and War --- international terrorism, and more War, more insurgency and terrorism, ----> all played a part in the outcome. And the Palestinians/Arabs and the alliance they made with all the various Arab nations that supported the continuation of insurgency and terrorism ---> played a major role outcomes (as unfavorable they are to the Palestinian people). And the Palestinian People, themselves, who gave both real and political support to the furtherance of war, insurgency, and terrorism, must take a certain amount of responsibility for their actions; individually and governmentally.

They ----> and only they ----> chose to ignore the basic principles of settling their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. And when their alternative ---> "violence" and non-peaceful means failed (to achieve their desired results), they start crying that everyone violated the covenant. (History is very clear on this point.) If the Arabs in collusion with the Palestinians, had not kicked off the 1973 Yom Kipper War, the Israelis would still be at the 1967 lines; they would be no need for a withdraw to the '67 borders. But the Arab/Palestinian and associated Arab League Nations, were greedy. And yet, the Arab/Palestinian still denies any responsibility for that war.

And again I say, the Palestinian People, themselves, who gave both real and political support to the furtherance of war, insurgency, and terrorism, must take a certain amount of responsibility for their actions; individually and governmentally.

It takes two to tango in war. And the Arab/Palestinian, in each and every case, set the conditions for war.

I assure you that if the 5 Arab Armies had in the past, or does at any point in the future, ----> win, they would not be a benevolent government acting in the best interest of the people. If they win in the future, they will not be a productive member of the international community. The Palestinians will be a Proxy nation of Iran, which I am sure they rest of the CCASG (Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf) will fully appreciate. They will be a major headache in assisting with Iran's clear interference in the domestic affairs of Arab countries, and destabilization efforts in the security of GCC members. It will not be long before the GCC will covertly start assisting Israel as a means of reducing the influence of Iran and the Shi'ite power base.

The achievement of a Palestinian success is now more dangerous to the GCC than the continuation of the Israeli state.

Most Respectfully,
R

This reads like an Israeli propaganda site. Seriously, I scrolled down to find the link.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I am what I am.

This reads like an Israeli propaganda site. Seriously, I scrolled down to find the link.

(QUESTION)

With what do you disagree?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I am what I am.

This reads like an Israeli propaganda site. Seriously, I scrolled down to find the link.

(QUESTION)

With what do you disagree?

Most Respectfully,
R

First off, the UK didn't make the "offer" in the Mandate, the Allied Powers did, IAW the Covenant and the Treaty. Over three-quarters (75%) of the Mandate, known as Palestine, went to the Arabs/Palestinians. And only a Little more than half of the remainder went to the Israelis; and that was by GA offer in Resolution 181, not by the UK.

What are you trying to say here?

What is the relevance?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If the UK did not have anything to do with the "offer" and "acceptance" by Jewish; and the "offer" and "declination" by the Palestinians, exactly what are they accused of?

I am what I am.

This reads like an Israeli propaganda site. Seriously, I scrolled down to find the link.

(QUESTION)

With what do you disagree?

Most Respectfully,
R

First off, the UK didn't make the "offer" in the Mandate, the Allied Powers did, IAW the Covenant and the Treaty. Over three-quarters (75%) of the Mandate, known as Palestine, went to the Arabs/Palestinians. And only a Little more than half of the remainder went to the Israelis; and that was by GA offer in Resolution 181, not by the UK.

What are you trying to say here?

What is the relevance?

(COMMENT)

If the outcome of the founding of Israel is a violation of the Covenant, then the Covenant is at fault, because the GA is the body of the Covenant; not the UK.

So, exactly what is the key to the violation (probable cause to support) the charge you make against the UK?

Be specific. Remember, the right to self-determination was presented by the body of the Covenant. You may not agree, but an "offer" (by the General Assembly, the body of the Covenant) was made to - and the Palestinian, exercising its right of self-determination, declined (rejected, not accepted, however you want to phrase it) the offer.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If the UK did not have anything to do with the "offer" and "acceptance" by Jewish; and the "offer" and "declination" by the Palestinians, exactly what are they accused of?

I am what I am.


(QUESTION)

With what do you disagree?

Most Respectfully,
R

First off, the UK didn't make the "offer" in the Mandate, the Allied Powers did, IAW the Covenant and the Treaty. Over three-quarters (75%) of the Mandate, known as Palestine, went to the Arabs/Palestinians. And only a Little more than half of the remainder went to the Israelis; and that was by GA offer in Resolution 181, not by the UK.

What are you trying to say here?

What is the relevance?

(COMMENT)

If the outcome of the founding of Israel is a violation of the Covenant, then the Covenant is at fault, because the GA is the body of the Covenant; not the UK.

So, exactly what is the key to the violation (probable cause to support) the charge you make against the UK?

Be specific. Remember, the right to self-determination was presented by the body of the Covenant. You may not agree, but an "offer" (by the General Assembly, the body of the Covenant) was made to - and the Palestinian, exercising its right of self-determination, declined (rejected, not accepted, however you want to phrase it) the offer.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am trying to figure out what you are saying but you are jumping around too much.