The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Boston1]

Every Dog has its Day,Shusha........be circumspect of what you have done........WITH ARROGANCE AND HATE

Footnote.....You are also ahead of yourself......Palestinians do live there and LIVE

There is no arrogance or hate in wanting a safe place for the Jewish people to have self-determination and sovereignty over their ancestral lands. Isn't that exactly what the Palestinians are asking for too?

Trouble is you have NO INTENTION of giving the Palestinians anything..............So that's why I am a Shining Sentinel against Zionist Shitheads

This is a perfect example of whats wrong with the pali's in the first place. They expect to be GIVEN everything and to WORK for nothing.

ISRAEL DOESN'T OWE THE PALI'S ANYTHING

And no Israel shouldn't GIVE the pali's one more inch of the area legally available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland. The pali's were ALREADY GIVEN about 80% of the mandated area, if thats not good enough, then tough shit.

Something else your comment shows is that its really not a land issue. Its three generations of welfare recipients who are beating down the doors for more more more. The UNs funding is drying up, in difficult economic times for the typical donors. One of the major issues is the hand outs are drying up and the mob is getting restless.

No the indigenous people have no obligation to the Arab Muslim colonists who are just going to have to satisfy themselves with the 80% of the mandate they already received.

In the end the Arab Muslim colonists will have to learn to fend for themselves. Once that is, the war is over and the POWs repatriated to neutral third party countries. Whoever might remain of the pali's in Israeli territories will be those wiling to act as civilized people within Israel.

Throw out the UNWRA and hasten the collapse of the Arab Muslim colonists welfare system such that we move that much closer to unconditional surrender, which is obviously the only viable option at this point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Guys c'mon, the subject is who's indigenous to palestine. Which is a misnomer right there as there really isn't a palestine.

The title should read "who is indigenous to Israel" Which is an actual location.

Sure there is a Palestine. You are just reading from Israel's bullshit book.

BTW, how about a map of Israel that does not have those fake border armistice lines?

Fake borders for a fake state.

 

[Phoenall]

The people that colonized Palestine, ejected the native people from the land they had been living on for several millennia and established a state for Jews at the expense of the Christians and Muslims were nearly all European Zionists. That was my only point. Whether Jews from Mars or anywhere else arrived after the native people were dispossessed is not in question. Unless the Jews face the fact that they expropriated a whole people to create their Jewish state, why would they ever compromise and come to some sort of peace. If all Jews believe the propaganda that Boston posts, then the propaganda has them believing:

1. God gave them the land so it was ok to expropriate the Christians and Muslims
2. There were no non-Jews living in Palestine before the Zionists colonized the place.
3. The Palestinians don't exist.
4. The Palestinians arrived after partition.

etc. etc.etc. all Zionist propaganda.

And the lies go on and on.

You are doing a very poor job of following and understanding our argument, Monte. Intentional?

1. No one is arguing on this board from a theological perspective. Everyone on the pro-Israel side is arguing from the perspective of law and humanitarian rights.

2. No one is arguing that there weren't Arab Muslims and Arab Christians living in Palestine and nor that they haven't been living there for thousands of years.

3. No one is arguing that the Palestinians don't exist. We all acknowledge their existence.

4. No one is arguing that the Palestinians "arrived" after Israel's independence.


What we are arguing is:

1. The Jewish people have the right to re-constitute our national homeland on that territory. That right is based on the fact of our being indigenous to the territory, that we have had historical sovereignty over that territory, that we have a legal claim to that territory and we need a safe and secure homeland for all the world's Jewish people.

2. Those Jewish people living in the Diaspora have a right to return to our homeland. (We are not colonizers, foreigners or invaders).

3. The Palestinian people ALSO have a right to a homeland and the right to return to it. (With some of us arguing that this homeland is Jordan and some of us arguing that the Palestinians must be accommodated in two new States -- the four State solution).

4. That the two cultures can live in peace together, side-by-side both within the nations in question and as neighboring nations.


Now, let's go over the anti-Israel arguments:

1. Only the current inhabitants of a territory have rights to sovereignty.

2. Past inhabitants have no rights to the territory. Therefore, there is no right of return. (With some arguing that the Jewish people never lived in that territory -- an obvious falsehood).

3. Conquest, colonization and ethnic cleansing transfer rights from the indigenous inhabitants to the conquoring and colonizing culture.

4. That it is impossible for the Arab Muslim Palestinians to live with the Jewish people either in the same state or in a neighboring State.

Now, if the pro-Israel side adopted these arguments it would STILL demonstrate that the rights to Israel belong to the Jewish people. Its a lose/lose for the anti-Israel crowd.

The only argument he has is the one he invented and uses all the time, and that is the theological granting of land to the Jews. No matter how many times he is told that International law supports the claims of the Jews to ALL of Jewish Palestine he still uses the verses in the OT that have no bearing on the case. The LoN as the sovereign land owners granted a parcel of land to the Jews of the world for their NATIONal home, to stop any disputes on the facts that the Mandate did not mean a wholly Jewish or arab state in Palestine the land was partitioned into two separate pieces with the allocation being along purely demographic lines. It was a fair portioning of the land at the time and so the arab muslims started to flood the area with illegal immigrants noted by some of the worlds foremost politicians at the time. So the recent historical evidence shows that the arab muslims are recent arrivals and have no cultural, religious or historical claims to the land. Nor do they have any legal claims to the land and should be told by the UN to move back where they came from.

 

[Phoenall]

Guys c'mon, the subject is who's indigenous to palestine. Which is a misnomer right there as there really isn't a palestine.

The title should read "who is indigenous to Israel" Which is an actual location.

Sure there is a Palestine. You are just reading from Israel's bullshit book.

BTW, how about a map of Israel that does not have those fake border armistice lines?

Fake borders for a fake state.

Yes there is an area known as Palestine so named by the Romans when they conquered the land. There was never a nation of Palestine until 1988 when the arab muslims made step one on their race to steal Israel.

Are those the fake borders that you introduce all the time as a starting point for Palestinian demands ?

So what are the borders of Palestine, show a map delineating these borders that says these are the recognised borders of Palestine

 

[Phoenall]

They are now, and they should be, its the ONLY Jewish state. The Arabs on the other hand have something like 49 states, I'd have to go count them up but if anything the Arab Muslims are over represented, and the Judaic people, under.

States aren't allocated on the basis of religion or ethnicity on a tit for tat basis. How many states do Europeans have? They have 51. Don't you think we should give some of them to the Jews since they have double the number of states the Arabs do?

Arabs have 22 states: List of Arab countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which European states have religious, cultural and racial ties to the Jewish people, when you find one then please let the world know. Then let the world know what ties muslims have to Jerusalem other that dar al islam and conquest

Since when is that a requirement? Folks are talking about equalizing the number of states per religious grouping (totally ridiculous argement to begin with). Christians have more states. They need to give some up since they did, afterall, kill 2/3 of the Jews in Europe.

Only you are talking about that so you can demonise the Jews again. The fact is the arab muslims have 99.9% of the land in the M.E. and they still want more. In fact they want to dominate the world and turn it into an Islamic caliphate ruled from Mecca. As for killing 2/3 of the Jews didn't the Russians already do that a few years earlier. And what about the American illegal colonists that killed 9/10 of the indigenous population then ?

You need to get off the "demonize Jews" schtick you burp out at every argument. Russia did not come anywhere close to killing 2/3 of Europes Jewish population and, they're majority Christian. So were the American colonists. Yes, I think we need to take several of those Christian states and give them to the Jews

So you are now ignoring the 10 million innocents starved to death in the Ukraine, followed by the Jews thrown into Gulags and beaten to death for the crime of being Jewish. This is why so few Jews managed to escape Europe after 1944 because the Russians owned so much of the land mass that they kept them caged up.
The Americans prior to 1730 were indigenous First Nations people who the Christian colonists mass murdered in their millions. Just as they did in Africa and South America. So the Christians should first hand back all their stolen lands to the people who own them, and then hope they can find a place to live. You never know the Jews might take a few of you arrogant land thieves in and allow you to exist as you allowed the indigenous to exist for 250 years. Maybe if you faced the atrocities meted out by the arab muslims you would change your views on who the evil vile people are. OR YOU CAN KEEP ON DEMONIZING THE JEWS AS YOU ARE NOW, AND HOPE THAT YOU ARE NOT OSTRACISESED BY ALL YOUR FRIENDS

 

[Phoenall]

This isn't hard work, Coyote, its actually already done, basic history is about all it is. There simply is no distinct palestinian culture, its virtually indistinguishable from Arab Muslim culture as a whole.

Even if someone wants to concede the issue its irrelevant as the Arab Muslims have more than fair representation in multiple states of the region. No reason at all the Judaic people shouldn't also be represented.

I think you and I will have to agree to disagree there. The Judaic people ARE represented, by a Jewish state.

And if the muslims had won in 1948/1949, or at any point after that the Jews would now be extinct in that part of the world. So who would have represented them then ? ? ?

But they didn't, so that's just another pointless statement.

Not when you read their testimony from before the war of independence, and their many charters from after the war of independence. You can even read their letters to the UN that say the same thing. There will never be peace while a Jew is allowed to live in Palestine, and the Palestinians will fight until either the Jews are wiped out or the Palestinians are eradicated. You can keep on saying that the Palestinians proclamations are pointless all you want, they show that they are out to massacre every Jew. So why are you in denial, is it your anti Semitism and Jew hatred that is driving your POV ?

Wipe the "antisemitism and Jew hatred" drivel off your chin, it looks ridiculous. As I said they didn't win the war so your point is pointless.

Whats wrong cant you stand being proven wrong all the time. The arab muslims have stated that their intentions are to destroy Israel and wipe out the Jews. The Jews have not stated anything similar as official policy

 

[Phoenall]

Yes, but the gist of this thread, and indeed the foundational ideology of the entire conflict is that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and self-rule and that the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.. The arguments made here by myself and Boston are primarily to counter that line of thinking, both because it is the morally correct thing to do and because its the only way to peace.

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

Boston is also trying to point out that the Palestinian people also already have representation and self-rule in Palestine -- Jordan. They already have a State. Boston is not wrong on that. He is absolutely correct. What they want now is at least one (realistically now two) more States. Part of the reason they want those two more States, not the entire reason, but part, is to accomplish the goal described above -- to dismantle the Jewish National Home.

However, I add that, regardless of their origins and the length of time they have existed as a distinct people, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are one now and because of that must be addressed. The only question is how to address them. I don't think Boston (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) objects to self-determination for a Palestinian people -- he just doesn't think it should be carved out of Israel.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

But it has not taken it, and those that say they have are the ones trying to dismantle Israel. The land was Jewish in law, and that can not be disputed by anyone. The evidence was the Jordanian enacting of a law to relieve the Jews of ownership of the lands that Jordan occupied in 1949 and turning it over to Palestinian ownership. The Oslo accords turned back the pages of history and allowed the Jews who owned land in the west bank to reclaim it and make it theirs again. So get your facts right and stop posting from the Jew hatred anti semitic islamonazi POV

Well yes. It can.

Then dispute it in law, lets see how far you are prepared to go in your demonization of the Jews.


A history lesson for you that in itself proves that the land was Jewish.

Prior to 1900 the land was owned by the Ottoman empire that allowed minimal self rule by certain parts of the empire. The Ottomans went to war as allies of Germany and the Palestinians fought alongside their Mufti. They lost the war and so in line with the usual practise the losers lost land and goods to offset the costs incurred by the winning side. The land of Palestine was part of the reparations made to the LoN as the negotiators for the winning side. The LoN made treaties with various people allocating land to different groups, one of the groups was the Jews who received what was called Jewish Palestine, while the arab muslims received the lions share of all the land in the M.E. So dispute the international laws and the facts all you dare, as doing so will just show that you are a rabid anti Jew racist and Nazi.

According to the debate in the Mandate thread there were NO promises made to either the Jews or the Arabs and no land legally allocated to either group. It was an agreement between powers, not law.

And who said this then as the Mandate is very clear in its words.

Here it is again making just thaose promises




The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate




The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;




VERY VERY VERY CLEAR PROMISES, UNLESS YOU ARE A JEW HATER

 

[Phoenall]

The people that colonized Palestine, ejected the native people from the land they had been living on for several millennia and established a state for Jews at the expense of the Christians and Muslims were nearly all European Zionists. That was my only point. Whether Jews from Mars or anywhere else arrived after the native people were dispossessed is not in question. Unless the Jews face the fact that they expropriated a whole people to create their Jewish state, why would they ever compromise and come to some sort of peace. If all Jews believe the propaganda that Boston posts, then the propaganda has them believing:

1. God gave them the land so it was ok to expropriate the Christians and Muslims
2. There were no non-Jews living in Palestine before the Zionists colonized the place.
3. The Palestinians don't exist.
4. The Palestinians arrived after partition.

etc. etc.etc. all Zionist propaganda.

And the lies go on and on.

1 The lands legal sovereign owners gave the Jews the land under International law

2 The Catholic encyclopedia shows that the Ottomans counted more Jews than muslims in Palestine ( sanjak of Jerusalem)

3 Define Palestinians as the evidence shows that most arrived in the invasion forces from the arab league

4 So the evidence shows that they did arrive during the invasion, care to show they didn't.



Yes your lies do go on and on and on

You keep going back to the Catholic encyclopedia. Nothing else supports your claim.

Apart from the Ottoman census records and the LoN records that are where the data comes from. All team Palestine has is a novel written by a committee and that contains errors all the way through. One of which is that the Jews own the most land on one page, and then on the next the whole of the muslim peoples are lumped together to show they inhabit more land.
Now as any intelligent person will tell you I can own land and you can inhabit it.

Then how about the UN setting up the Palestinians own refugee agency because the "Palestinians" did not meet the two year residency criteria to be classed as refugees otherwise.



Now prove that I have lied or I will be putting in a formal complaint about your behaviour and be asking that you be removed from this board.

 

[Phoenall]

The native people of Palestine are the Palestinians. The Jews were in Europe when the Mandate was signed. The Jews that colonized Palestine were natives of Europe, by definition.

Not according to you and your ilk, which is why you shouted to them " GO BACK TO IAREAL WHERE YOU BELONG" --- this is a no topical content post.

 

[Phoenall]

The native people of Palestine are the Palestinians. The Jews were in Europe when the Mandate was signed. The Jews that colonized Palestine were natives of Europe, by definition.

I think we all know by now you simply can't accept the truth.

Despite your obvious cognitive dissonance. The Judaic people are native to Judea. They developed from the Hyksos or protojudaic people in the Canaan valley area sometime in about the mid bronze age.

More than ample references have been offered supporting these facts.

We also know that there was no such people as palestinians until Arafat applied the term to the Arab Muslim Jordanians after the failed 67 attack against Israel. Previous to that they were former subjects of the Ottoman Empire

We also just went over how they colonized the area in two waves. One during the Arab Muslim expansion in roughly the 9th century CE and again in the late Zionist period.

So its really not hard to see Monty, that your statement is really just your own imagination because you are simply unable to face the facts.

The indigenous people in Judea are the Judaic people.

The European Zionists were natives of Europe. By definition. You have ignored the facts and have only presented Zionist propaganda. You are simply repeating lies that have no basis in fact. The Muslim "expansion" had no effect on the Jews. There were no Jews in Palestine to affect. The only people affected were Christians, some of whom may have had distant ancestors of the Jewish religion. It's really not that difficult to follow logic Boston. You were found out as a propagandist long ago.

So you are saying that no Jews existed outside of Europe until 1875 when they started to spread all over the world. Will you now dispute your own words ?

 

[Phoenall]

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

But it has not taken it, and those that say they have are the ones trying to dismantle Israel. The land was Jewish in law, and that can not be disputed by anyone. The evidence was the Jordanian enacting of a law to relieve the Jews of ownership of the lands that Jordan occupied in 1949 and turning it over to Palestinian ownership. The Oslo accords turned back the pages of history and allowed the Jews who owned land in the west bank to reclaim it and make it theirs again. So get your facts right and stop posting from the Jew hatred anti semitic islamonazi POV

Well yes. It can.

Then dispute it in law, lets see how far you are prepared to go in your demonization of the Jews.


A history lesson for you that in itself proves that the land was Jewish.

Prior to 1900 the land was owned by the Ottoman empire that allowed minimal self rule by certain parts of the empire. The Ottomans went to war as allies of Germany and the Palestinians fought alongside their Mufti. They lost the war and so in line with the usual practise the losers lost land and goods to offset the costs incurred by the winning side. The land of Palestine was part of the reparations made to the LoN as the negotiators for the winning side. The LoN made treaties with various people allocating land to different groups, one of the groups was the Jews who received what was called Jewish Palestine, while the arab muslims received the lions share of all the land in the M.E. So dispute the international laws and the facts all you dare, as doing so will just show that you are a rabid anti Jew racist and Nazi.

According to the debate in the Mandate thread there were NO promises made to either the Jews or the Arabs and no land legally allocated to either group. It was an agreement between powers, not law.

And no promises needed to be made. The people of the place own the place. All of the people who became Palestinian citizens after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne became, collectively, the owners of Palestine.

A pity that the treaty does not even mention Palestine so it cant apply, how many more times will you show your stupidity in using a treaty that does not mention the subject matter.

 

[Phoenall]

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

I think the confusion is that you assume the palestinians as Arafat named them in 67 are a distinct people that can be disenfranchised. I don't think they are. I see Arab Muslims trying yet again to take more Israeli land by pretending there is a disenfranchised people, selling the PR to the world. Really it doesn't take much of a background in history to realize its all just hype.

Even if the Arab Muslims of Jordan are a distinct people they already have a state in Jordan, I think I've managed to make that clear. And its all of about 100' from Israel. In which case a strong argument cam be made that IF and thats a huge IF these people are in any way indigenous ( and we know they're not because Arab Muslims expanded from the Arabian Peninsula in about the 7th to 9th century CE ) they already have at least one state.

They also already have another state or soon to be state in Gaza. Anytime they take the time from bombing and building tunnels to kidnap Israeli's and actually declare statehood. And there is absolutely no reason they can't as of this very instant.

The fundamental problem is racism and bigotry, and the hatred fomented by the Arab leagues greed. The Arab Muslims simply want it all and if they can't take it militarily they are going to try and take at least as much as they can through the PR war.

To which I say NOT ANOTHER INCH

The Arab Muslims can satisfy themselves with the 99% of the middle east they did get and quit whining about that last 1%.

The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims want their ancestral homeland back. The land the Palestinian people Christian and Muslim had lived on for several millennia was colonized by European Zionists. The fact that some of the Christian Palestinians converted to Islam does not change anything. By the way, the Palestinian people declared themselves as such long before 1967. Stop your usual Zionist propagandizing. All your propaganda and revisionism was debunked long ago by source documents.

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

• 
  "............We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration....."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

The Palestinians are Palestinians by treaty, by international law, and domestic law.

This whole thread is for Zionists to blow smoke on the issue.

Then produce the treaties, international laws and domestic laws that say so. They must clearly state the formation of a Palestinian state for the arab muslims. They must not say the Mandate of Palestine as that is not a state.


How do you like that smoke that destroys your reply before you even make it.

The Mandate of Palestine was the Mandate of what?

Palestine the area under discussion, it was sectioned into 2 parts with 78% becoming arab Palestine and 22% becoming Jewish Palestine. Try reading the Mandate of Palestine again, it is in there.


So now produce the treaties, international laws and domestic laws that make Palestine a state prior to 1988 ?

 

[Boston1]

The people that colonized Palestine, ejected the native people from the land they had been living on for several millennia and established a state for Jews at the expense of the Christians and Muslims were nearly all European Zionists. That was my only point. Whether Jews from Mars or anywhere else arrived after the native people were dispossessed is not in question. Unless the Jews face the fact that they expropriated a whole people to create their Jewish state, why would they ever compromise and come to some sort of peace. If all Jews believe the propaganda that Boston posts, then the propaganda has them believing:

1. God gave them the land so it was ok to expropriate the Christians and Muslims
2. There were no non-Jews living in Palestine before the Zionists colonized the place.
3. The Palestinians don't exist.
4. The Palestinians arrived after partition.

etc. etc.etc. all Zionist propaganda.

And the lies go on and on.

1 The lands legal sovereign owners gave the Jews the land under International law

2 The Catholic encyclopedia shows that the Ottomans counted more Jews than muslims in Palestine ( sanjak of Jerusalem)

3 Define Palestinians as the evidence shows that most arrived in the invasion forces from the arab league

4 So the evidence shows that they did arrive during the invasion, care to show they didn't.



Yes your lies do go on and on and on

You keep going back to the Catholic encyclopedia. Nothing else supports your claim.

Apart from the Ottoman census records and the LoN records that are where the data comes from. All team Palestine has is a novel written by a committee and that contains errors all the way through. One of which is that the Jews own the most land on one page, and then on the next the whole of the muslim peoples are lumped together to show they inhabit more land.
Now as any intelligent person will tell you I can own land and you can inhabit it.

Then how about the UN setting up the Palestinians own refugee agency because the "Palestinians" did not meet the two year residency criteria to be classed as refugees otherwise.



Now prove that I have lied or I will be putting in a formal complaint about your behaviour and be asking that you be removed from this board.

I can't picture Coyote going anywhere. Actually she's one of the more civil posters on this thing. While I completely disagree with most of her views. I'd rather have an at least somewhat rational opposing view than a completely irrational one.

In any case we now return you to your normally scheduled discussion

So who is considered an indigenous person to Judea. Obviously the Judaic people.

 

[Phoenall]

The native people of Palestine are the Palestinians. The Jews were in Europe when the Mandate was signed. The Jews that colonized Palestine were natives of Europe, by definition.

And now the Jewish people are in Israel. So they are the natives of Israel and the Palestinians who no longer live there are Jordanians and Syrians. See how easy that was?

The Europeans of the Jewish faith are in Israel now. The Europeans of the Christian faith were there too, for a while. Longer than the European Jews have been there.

And the Jewish Jews have been there for 4,500 years and are the original Palestinians. Or are you once again going to deny that Jews were there before Christians and that is why you and your religion want to wipe them out

 

[Billo_Really]

But that last legally binding instrument supports native rights. The natives being the Judaic people.

If that was true, then why would the last legally binding instrument have the following caveat?

"...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
​

Since migrating Zionists did not honor that part of the last legally binding instrument, it makes them in breach of said instrument. And once they are in breach of said instrument, that instrument is no longer binding.

 

[Boston1]

But that last legally binding instrument supports native rights. The natives being the Judaic people.

If that was true, then why would the last legally binding instrument have the following caveat?

"...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
​

Since migrating Zionists did not honor that part of the last legally binding instrument, it makes them in breach of said instrument. And once they are in breach of said instrument, that instrument is no longer binding.

What makes you think Israel has prejudiced anyones religious or civil rights. And remember protected persons are not those who have engaged in hostile acts against the state, assisted those who engaged in hostile acts against the state or are suspected of engaging or assisting in hostile acts against the state ;--)

 

[Billo_Really]

What makes you think Israel has prejudiced anyones religious or civil rights.

Because Zionists declared Israel an independent Jewish State on May 15, 1948, when it was only 30% of the population

I don't think the majority 70% of Arabs living there, would've voted for the creation of a Jewish State.

The fact that it was called a "Jewish State", meant that any non-Jewish residents, had no representation in the new government.

And driving out over 700,000 Arabs with Jewish terrorism, proves it.

And remember protected persons are not those who have engaged in hostile acts against the state, assisted those who engaged in hostile acts against the state or are suspected of engaging or assisting in hostile acts against the state ;--)

There was no hostility between Arabs and Jews in that area until the Zionist migration.

 

[montelatici]

The people that colonized Palestine, ejected the native people from the land they had been living on for several millennia and established a state for Jews at the expense of the Christians and Muslims were nearly all European Zionists. That was my only point. Whether Jews from Mars or anywhere else arrived after the native people were dispossessed is not in question. Unless the Jews face the fact that they expropriated a whole people to create their Jewish state, why would they ever compromise and come to some sort of peace. If all Jews believe the propaganda that Boston posts, then the propaganda has them believing:

1. God gave them the land so it was ok to expropriate the Christians and Muslims
2. There were no non-Jews living in Palestine before the Zionists colonized the place.
3. The Palestinians don't exist.
4. The Palestinians arrived after partition.

etc. etc.etc. all Zionist propaganda.

And the lies go on and on.

1 The lands legal sovereign owners gave the Jews the land under International law

2 The Catholic encyclopedia shows that the Ottomans counted more Jews than muslims in Palestine ( sanjak of Jerusalem)

3 Define Palestinians as the evidence shows that most arrived in the invasion forces from the arab league

4 So the evidence shows that they did arrive during the invasion, care to show they didn't.



Yes your lies do go on and on and on

You keep going back to the Catholic encyclopedia. Nothing else supports your claim.

Apart from the Ottoman census records and the LoN records that are where the data comes from. All team Palestine has is a novel written by a committee and that contains errors all the way through. One of which is that the Jews own the most land on one page, and then on the next the whole of the muslim peoples are lumped together to show they inhabit more land.
Now as any intelligent person will tell you I can own land and you can inhabit it.

Then how about the UN setting up the Palestinians own refugee agency because the "Palestinians" did not meet the two year residency criteria to be classed as refugees otherwise.



Now prove that I have lied or I will be putting in a formal complaint about your behaviour and be asking that you be removed from this board.

I can't picture Coyote going anywhere. Actually she's one of the more civil posters on this thing. While I completely disagree with most of her views. I'd rather have an at least somewhat rational opposing view than a completely irrational one.

In any case we now return you to your normally scheduled discussion

So who is considered an indigenous person to Judea. Obviously the Judaic people.

Judea is not indigenous to the area. It was Canaan before it was Judea. In any case, the European Zionists were not from Judea, they were from Europe, by definition.

Furthermore, since the Judaic people can be of any national, ethnic and racial heritage, they cannot be indigenous to any one place, by definition. Descendants of European converts to Judaism, for example, cannot be indigenous to a place in the Middle East, by definition.

 

[Coyote]

The people that colonized Palestine, ejected the native people from the land they had been living on for several millennia and established a state for Jews at the expense of the Christians and Muslims were nearly all European Zionists. That was my only point. Whether Jews from Mars or anywhere else arrived after the native people were dispossessed is not in question. Unless the Jews face the fact that they expropriated a whole people to create their Jewish state, why would they ever compromise and come to some sort of peace. If all Jews believe the propaganda that Boston posts, then the propaganda has them believing:

1. God gave them the land so it was ok to expropriate the Christians and Muslims
2. There were no non-Jews living in Palestine before the Zionists colonized the place.
3. The Palestinians don't exist.
4. The Palestinians arrived after partition.

etc. etc.etc. all Zionist propaganda.

And the lies go on and on.

1 The lands legal sovereign owners gave the Jews the land under International law

2 The Catholic encyclopedia shows that the Ottomans counted more Jews than muslims in Palestine ( sanjak of Jerusalem)

3 Define Palestinians as the evidence shows that most arrived in the invasion forces from the arab league

4 So the evidence shows that they did arrive during the invasion, care to show they didn't.



Yes your lies do go on and on and on

You keep going back to the Catholic encyclopedia. Nothing else supports your claim.

Apart from the Ottoman census records and the LoN records that are where the data comes from.

Yes, and they did not support your claim - we went over that in another thread and you kept bringing up the Catholic Encyclopedia as if it were the Bible.

All team Palestine has is a novel written by a committee and that contains errors all the way through.

One of which is that the Jews own the most land on one page, and then on the next the whole of the muslim peoples are lumped together to show they inhabit more land.
Now as any intelligent person will tell you I can own land and you can inhabit it.

I have no idea what "novel" you are talking about. I used Ottoman census records for my claims.

Then how about the UN setting up the Palestinians own refugee agency because the "Palestinians" did not meet the two year residency criteria to be classed as refugees otherwise.

What about it? Are you now claiming that the Palestinians had only been their < 2 yrs?

Now prove that I have lied or I will be putting in a formal complaint about your behaviour and be asking that you be removed from this board.

Please do.

 

[Phoenall]

But that last legally binding instrument supports native rights. The natives being the Judaic people.

If that was true, then why would the last legally binding instrument have the following caveat?

"...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."
​

Since migrating Zionists did not honor that part of the last legally binding instrument, it makes them in breach of said instrument. And once they are in breach of said instrument, that instrument is no longer binding.

What civil and religious rights extant at the time of the signing of the mandate have been prejudiced then. List them along with their date of becoming a civil or religious right. Then explain why it was the next part of the mandate was breached by the Palestinians before the ink was dry on the treaty. " or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country " So does this mean because the rights and political status of the Jews was prehudiced even before the Zionists arrived that the instrument was no longer binding on the Jews.

You want to play stupid expect to be shown as stupid every time. Now go away and learn all about the mandate and what it meant