The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

SUBTOPIC: You cannot have it both ways.
※→ P F Timore, et al,

IF you call it an "international" issue, THEN let us keep the discussion in that domain.​

​

IF you are going to call it a "domestic" issue, THEN let us keep the discussion in that domain.​

(COMMENT)

The entry and exit of one's own country (single sovereignty) the action all contained within one continuous boundary, then we are talking about Article 12, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) criteria.

The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​

The logic you are attempting to use is that the entirety of the territory formerly
to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, is an independent state under Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. Thus, the movement between (as an example) Tel Aviv and Ramallah is under one sovereignty (one's own country). That is a totally erroneous assumption. Israel was established under the Right of Self-Determination.

However, the movement (in the example) between Ramallah (a unique legal entity) and Tel Aviv (Israel) is a transit between two separate jurisdictions. The law that governs movement from Ramallah to Tel Aviv is regulated under the criteria established by Israel and is covered under Article 2(7), UN Charter as a matter of territorial integrity.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.​

But you cannot have it both ways. IF you consider the first instance under Article 12 CCPR, THEN (as one example) the ramifications of that decision mean that there are no Arab Palestinian Refugees in the territory. It was a movement totally within a single jurisdiction.

You must be able to accept the consequences. (Something the Arab Palestinians not noted for.)

(COMMENT)

I cannot recall Israel specifically denying any specific "right" - bound under international law (violently or otherwise).

General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) is NOT law. If you want to argue this point then cite me what law you are using.

The use of non-state actors by the Arab Palestinians to pursue activities directed against the State of Israel, with the intention to intimidate or coerce the Israeli people to alter their course of action relative to the protection of the Jewish National Home is, by the very nature and intent, terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.

Palestine was a region. Never a country.

The Ottomans lost WWI, they lost the region.

Arab Muslims only had control of it from their invasion after the Kurds.

Arabs never complained about the Crusaders or the Ottoman conquest.

It is the Jews they have always had a problem with, as so do you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.

And then the Israelis beat those foreign, Arab armies.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Staying on Topic and Being Relevant
※→ et al,

(GENERAL COMMENT)

This THREAD should be re-named the "Arab Palestinian Whining" Thread - or - the "Perpetual Victims Thread."
_______________________________________
By the way, the UNIPAL Database is non-functioning due to some unspecified client-based error in the request. For the amount of time the database has been rejecting requests, makes it look mightily suspicious as if the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian factions are resisting fact checks.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Hollie]

Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.

No, it was not.

Maybe peddle your spam in a different thread.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Staying on Topic and Being Relevant
※→ Hollie, et al,

No, it was not.

Maybe peddle your spam in a different thread.

(COMMENT)

For some, this is a desperate idea that some Arab Palestinians grasp in order to justify violence.

This is not just an opposing view, to deliberately deceive the reader. Whereas disinformation is a propaganda tool by non-state actors in support of a hostile regime. Our friend P F Tinmore is very crafty in the way we phrases things like:

P F Tinmore said:
Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.

Notice that PF Tinmore does not say who the foreign forces were, where and when the attack took place, what the purpose of the attack served; or the motive as to why the attack was necessary.

Our friend "Hollie" has nailed the salient points yet again.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Staying on Topic and Being Relevant
※→ Hollie, et al,


(COMMENT)

For some, this is a desperate idea that some Arab Palestinians grasp in order to justify violence.

This is not just an opposing view, to deliberately deceive the reader. Whereas disinformation is a propaganda tool by non-state actors in support of a hostile regime. Our friend P F Tinmore is very crafty in the way we phrases things like:



Notice that PF Tinmore does not say who the foreign forces were, where and when the attack took place, what the purpose of the attack served; or the motive as to why the attack was necessary.

Our friend "Hollie" has nailed the salient points yet again.

Most Respectfully,
R

Notice that PF Tinmore does not say who the foreign forces were, where and when the attack took place, what the purpose of the attack served; or the motive as to why the attack was necessary.

The Zionist Project - 1948

www.1948.org.uk

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Zionist Project - 1948

www.1948.org.uk

The Zionist Project

A site bent on destroying Jewish History, and the State of Israel with it.

Let us take a look:

1948: LEST.WE.FORGET

We are a loose group of multi-cultural/multi-desciplinary/multi-national individuals who share a single belief that an injustice had been orchestrated and implemented in Palestine since WW1. We do not pretend to be non-political because, as the world knows, everything about Palestine IS political.

Underpinning our beliefs, aims and objectives is an unrelenting struggle to end the Zionist colonisation and occupation of historic Palestine. The inhumanity of this occupation, the longest in modern history, came about as a consequence of political manoeuvers by Zionist leaders in collaboration with world powers who had a political agenda with misguided narrow interests and utilising political means (supplemented by military and terror tactics) to achieve a political aim: the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous people of over 1 million Palestinians and replacing them with another people, exclusively Jewish, imported from outside.

Our aim, therefore, is:

1. To expose the Zionist lies which, for far too long, have been presented and accepted as the true scenario of how Israel came about in 1948; to raise awareness of the tragic events that befell and continue to engulf historic Palestine and its people as a result of these Zionist lies; to salvage a piece of history which has been cruelly erased and simply forgotten; by sourcing information from de-classified official documents from Zionist government archives. This will allow the general public to exercise the right to speak without fear and to judge without prejudice.

2. To call for the Right of Return of all Palestinian refugees to their homes in all of historic Palestine to be re-affirmed and re-asserted under International Law and in accordance with all relevant United Nations Resolutions. This Right of Return remains non-negotiable and must apply to those Palestinians who are not UNRWA registered refugees, should they choose to return.

3. To campaign for equitable and fair restitution and compensation for destroyed, damaged or stolen Palestinian properties and for lost wealth and income for those who fled out of fear or were expelled ever since 1948.

4. To celebrate the rich and colourful culture of the vibrant Palestinian society and its people by promoting it beyond the confines of the refugee camps and the borders of a cruelly occupied territory.

5. To plan, organise and promote cultural activities through media, music, film, architecture and art exhibitions, theatre performances and public debates.

We believe in the single democratic state within the borders of historic Palestine with equal rights for all its citizens. Any attempt at negotiations which does not address this one goal is bound to fail miserably. For many decades now, all past negotiations which had been conducted outisde this framework had failed miserably.

-------------------------------


Indeed, all past negotiations have failed because the leaders are scared to death they will end up dead or the golden goose will come no more.

As there has never has been a "Historic Palestine" with Arabs having the history which ended up creating Christianity and then Islam, all that is written in a site like is a waste of the people who created it, and any one who bothers to read the absolute non historical wonderland they live in.

Jews are from Judea, they are not some foreign invaders.

Now......Arabs, and all of them do come from the Arabian Peninsula, just as are all the Palestinians......
are from Arabia, and THAT will never change.

Create a thousand sites like this one and the truth will continue to be the same.

The Jews are the Indigenous people of the land with the right to reconstruct their Nation ON their ancient Jewish homeland.

And that was a truth acknowledged by all, including Christians and Muslims everywhere in the world, until the Jews DARED to become sovereign of their destiny and any part of their ancient homeland.

So, ignorant Tinmore.......post any and all sites and all toxic destructive nonsense about the history of the land......the result is always the same.

Am Israel chai

The People of Israel Live

And continue to survive the viciousness capable by too many Christians and Muslims who learn only hatred to Jews and how to mistreat, demean, attack and destroy Jews at any time the Jews seem to become successful at anything.


THAT is the endless history of Christianity and Islam.


Reject that history those who dare to do so.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine 1920: The Other Side of the Palestinian Story | Al Jazeera World​

 

[Sixties Fan]

On the Origin, Meaning, Use and Abuse of a Phrase

On the Origin, Meaning, Use and Abuse of a Phrase on JSTOR

Adam M. Garfinkle, On the Origin, Meaning, Use and Abuse of a Phrase, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 539-550

www.jstor.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

"A Land without a People for a People without a Land" (Diana Muir)

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

According to the late Edward Said the phrase the ‘A land without people for a people without a land,’ was coined by a Zionist named Israel Zangwill for the purpose of making the false claim that Palestine was empty. Other scholars, most notably Rashid Khalidi of Columbia University in his book “Palestinian Identity,” have explained that the phrase became a widely-propagated Zionist slogan summing up the assertion that Palestine was empty.

It ain’t necessarily so.

The phrase “A land without a people for a people without a land,” was not coined by a Jew, was never widely propagated by Zionists, and was not intended by the Victorian-era Christians who did use it to imply that Palestine was empty. It meant, quite specifically, that in the nineteenth century there was no self-identified Palestinian people in the land that would become Israel.

Edward Said even cited the phrase incorrectly, omitting the definite article to turn, “A land without a people,” into “A land without people,” and more effectively charge Zionists with falsely claiming that the land was empty.

But if Israel Zangwill didn’t coin this familiar phrase, who did?

A Scots Presbyterian in a frock coat, the Rev. Dr. Alexander Keith, who was sent to the Holy Land by the Church of Scotland on an 1839 fact-finding mission. His task: to determine whether the land was ready for the Jews to return (he thought that it was.) Keith published a book describing his trip and urging Christians to help the Jews, “a people without a country,” return to Israel, “a country without a people.”

An unsigned review of Keith’s book immediately put the phrase into the familiar “land without a people” wording.

Keith and the other Christians who used the phrase perceived the Holy Land as being the homeland of the Jews in the way that Greece was the homeland of the Greeks, and Scotland was the land of the Scots. They did not perceive the Arabs who lived in Palestinian as having a separate Palestinian ethnic or national identity, rather, they saw them as part of a larger Arab people. In this they were correct. The idea of a Palestinian people would not be proposed by Arab intellectuals until the twentieth century.

Rev. Keith urged Britain to “give Judea to the Jews” just as “Greece was given to the Greeks” in 1829. Greek independence was a wildly popular cause, idealistic young men sailed to Greece to join the fight. But even with Lord Byron and other romantic European volunteers shouldering rifles, the Greek rebellion would certainly have been put down by the Ottomans if Britain had not also sent the Navy, which secured Greek independence by defeating the combined Ottoman and Egyptian navies at the battle of Navarino. To many European and American Christians, the idea of creating a Jewish State seemed just as compelling as Byron’s dream that Greece might yet be free.

Keith’s political proposal failed to come to immediate fruition, but his slogan lived on, used by a fair number of Victorian-era Christians interested, like Keith, both in fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy of the return of the Jews to Israel and in relieving the oppression Jews suffered in Eastern Europe and in Ottoman lands.

Zionism, meanwhile, suffered no shortage of widely-propagated slogans. Read enough early Zionist literature and you may begin to suspect that there were once more Zionist slogans than there were Zionists. “Land without a people…,” however, was not a Zionist slogan.

(full article online)

"A Land Without a People for a People Without a Land"

According to the late Edward Said the phrase the ‘A land without people for a people without a land,’ was coined by a Zionist named Israel Zangwill for the purpose of making the false claim that Palestine was empty. Other scholars, most notably Rashid Khalidi of Columbia University in his...

hnn.us

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure hope I have the power to get rid of these Palestinians.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Sure hope I have the power to get rid of these Palestinians.

Tinmore, the Christian, transferring to Jews what Christians and Muslims have always done and continue to do, and have every intention of succeeding in doing with all Jews on the planet.

Good on ya, Tinmore !!!

 

[Sixties Fan]

It is almost a cliché to note that today too many historians and laypeople erroneously look at history through modern lenses that distort the picture and prevent an honest understanding of historical events.

But many others still want to read about history through the lens of as it was, not as today’s talking heads would have it. For those folks, Abraham Sion’s “To Whom Was The Promised Land Promised?” is a breath of fresh air.

Sion’s book is over 400 pages of thorough but eminently readable legal and historical analysis of the key moments and documents that led to the creation of a Jewish State in the land in which it was reestablished.

From the late 19th-century origins of modern Zionism to the British White Papers of the 1930s, the book provides a wealth of fascinating details on the legal and political understandings of the times that underpinned documents from the Balfour Declaration to the Hussein-McMahon letters.
The importance of these details to today’s debates is correctly identified by Sion, who notes in the context of the constant attacks on Israel’s legitimacy by institutions like the United Nations:

“Only by ignoring or overlooking these original treaties and resolutions could the international community arrive at the decisions adopted incessantly by the United Nations and other international organizations. These fundamental truths are ignored by the international community, and they are treated as if they never existed.”

“To Whom Was The Promised Land Promised” is at its best when it is examining the terminology found in agreements and declarations. Sion not only provides contemporary documentary sources to clarify the original meanings, but he also includes the words of key personalities of the times. The views of important figures – such as Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, Lord George Nathaniel Curzon, Emir Feisal, Woodrow Wilson, and many others – are illustrated throughout in relation to the conferences, correspondences, and agreements in which they partook.

The book contains fascinating and thorough examinations of the debates and negotiations inside the British Cabinet, the San Remo Conference, the drafting of the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne, the De Bunsen Committee, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Importantly, it does not treat these conversations and events as isolated from each other or unrelated, but rather as inter-connected and reinforcing.

Through this form of analysis, Sion adeptly examines the evolution of the language of what would become the Balfour Declaration, as well as how the British would later distort and betray its plain meaning as they discharged their responsibility as the colonial power over Mandate Palestine.

Using this type of analysis for the Balfour Declaration, the book stays true to history as it was, not as some would prefer it to have been. Sion elucidates the complex interplay between the British (and subsequently, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine) promise on the one hand to “use their best endeavours to facilitate” the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and, on the other hand, the understanding “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

(full article online)

To Whom Was The Promised Land Promised?

To Whom Was The Promised Land Promised? By Abraham A. Sion Mazo Publishers, 2020 The book is also an important read for anyone truly

www.camera.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

Before hashtags told us what to think and how to feel, it was slogans that stirred up energy for political causes. Repetition could turn the slogan into an idiom wielded by politicians but also shape how the people understood history and identity. This is how the slogan ‘Negation of the Diaspora’ – urging Palestine’s Jewish residents to cast off Jewish lifestyles forged in ‘exile’ – became a core Zionist principle shaping the narrative of the Jewish National Home in British Mandate Palestine. ‘Negating the Diaspora’ provided Palestine’s Jews with an explanation for their past as well as a direction for their national future. The hegemonic status of the slogan has hovered over Zionist historiography too, sometimes lending it a romantic quality. In recent years, however, the phrase has been critically rethought by a new generation of scholars, as illustrated by these three brilliant books about the British Mandate period.

(full article online)

The Naqba dynamic: A sobering analysis of Arab-Jewish relations

The fundamental Arab goal is complete de-Zionization of Israel, meaning canceling the Law of Return and the Jewish Nation-State Law.Op-ed

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

Before hashtags told us what to think and how to feel, it was slogans that stirred up energy for political causes. Repetition could turn the slogan into an idiom wielded by politicians but also shape how the people understood history and identity. This is how the slogan ‘Negation of the Diaspora’ – urging Palestine’s Jewish residents to cast off Jewish lifestyles forged in ‘exile’ – became a core Zionist principle shaping the narrative of the Jewish National Home in British Mandate Palestine. ‘Negating the Diaspora’ provided Palestine’s Jews with an explanation for their past as well as a direction for their national future. The hegemonic status of the slogan has hovered over Zionist historiography too, sometimes lending it a romantic quality. In recent years, however, the phrase has been critically rethought by a new generation of scholars, as illustrated by these three brilliant books about the British Mandate period.

(full article online)

The Naqba dynamic: A sobering analysis of Arab-Jewish relations

The fundamental Arab goal is complete de-Zionization of Israel, meaning canceling the Law of Return and the Jewish Nation-State Law.Op-ed

www.israelnationalnews.com

Presently, in 2022, the inter-communal friction and Arab violence in the Jerusalem Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood could ignite a broader countrywide upheaval.

So then, why is Israel provoking it? Israel keeps making problems for itself.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Before hashtags told us what to think and how to feel, it was slogans that stirred up energy for political causes. Repetition could turn the slogan into an idiom wielded by politicians but also shape how the people understood history and identity. This is how the slogan ‘Negation of the Diaspora’ – urging Palestine’s Jewish residents to cast off Jewish lifestyles forged in ‘exile’ – became a core Zionist principle shaping the narrative of the Jewish National Home in British Mandate Palestine. ‘Negating the Diaspora’ provided Palestine’s Jews with an explanation for their past as well as a direction for their national future. The hegemonic status of the slogan has hovered over Zionist historiography too, sometimes lending it a romantic quality. In recent years, however, the phrase has been critically rethought by a new generation of scholars, as illustrated by these three brilliant books about the British Mandate period.

(full article online)

The Naqba dynamic: A sobering analysis of Arab-Jewish relations

The fundamental Arab goal is complete de-Zionization of Israel, meaning canceling the Law of Return and the Jewish Nation-State Law.Op-ed

www.israelnationalnews.com

The Nakba lives.