What Kind of State in Israel?

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

Oh yeah, government-ese.

Rocco,

While I respond to your post perhaps you could answer a question.

What is a traditional Occupation terminator?

(COMMENT)

It is generally, one year from the end of hostilities (give or take a month).

As an example, the US/Coalition ended the Occupation of Iraq in June 2004, with the transfer to the Interim government.

BTW: I apologize for the unusual number of spelling errors in my previous post. The kids were waiting for me to take them somewhere and I was in a bit of a rush.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, I just was not familiar with that term.

Perhaps it is because the hostilities have never ended.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, georgephillip, irosie91, et al,

I believe I did.

BTW, you never responded to this post http://www.usmessageboard.com/6637015-post234.html That would explain the rest of your post.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe there were any other outstanding questions.

Most Respectfully,
R

I was just curious because you did not refute anything I posted but you did continue to post like you had not seen the information I posted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, georgephillip, irosie91, et al,

One cannot understand the development of today's situation unless one understands two critical points:

• That the Arab and Palestinian have not been in control since before the Ottoman Empire.
• That under the British Mandate, there was the intention of establishing a Jewish Homeland.

There should be no real misunderstanding on the objective of Israel and the inertia that pushes the actions they have taken.

Indeed, the stated goal of the Zionists for the last hundred years is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. All of Israel's actions have been to fulfill that goal.

(COMMENT)

You are still living in the 19th Century. While "all of Palestine" may have been a dream at one time, in 1948, they did not ask for all of Palestine. They asked for the piece of the territory promised by the Mandate.

The expansion and Occupation came as an outcome by subsequent aggression by the Palestinians and Arab States. You cannot blame the lost of territory on a war started by the Arab and Palestinian. If the Arab had not attempted to militarily conquer the Israeli, there would still be an Israel bounded by the 1948 borders.

In one sense, this is about the tactical competency in performance of Israeli countermeasures to Palestinian aggressive action.

Foreigners attacked and occupied Palestine. How do you see Palestinian aggression?

(COMMENT)

What foreigners. Jewish Immigration?

First, the territory was not Palestinian. It was under British Mandate, and before that, Ottoman. This is just an excuse because of the greedy and barbaric actions of the Arab and Palestinian, they lost ground.

How much better off would the Palestinian and Arab be if they had not been aggressive?

Most Respectfully,
R

How much better off would the Palestinian and Arab be if they had not been aggressive?

I hear that a lot but nobody has been able to say when the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I will grant you, that this White Paper expresses a counter view to the position in the past and the actual actions in the decades to come. But it is made moot.

ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Jews who immigrated and receive Palestinian citizenship would have the same rights as other Palestinians to buy land and to share in creating a government. There was not to be a Jewish state. Britain tried to clarify the duties of the mandate in its 1939 White Paper but it was too little too late.

Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone moving to Palestine to obtain citizenship and to be a part of Palestine's population can also enjoy the right to self determination. Indeed, one of the goals of the Palestine Mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

However, that is not what happened in Palestine. The vast majority of Jews who moved to Palestine were imported by the Zionists not to be a part of Palestine but to populate a separate Jewish state inside Palestine.

Israel was created by foreigners, on behalf of a foreign organization, without the consent of the Palestinians, and imposed on Palestine by military force.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Homeland was made a reality.

• It declared its Independence,
• it fought a war,
• security treaties,
• borders were recognized by treaties and armistice arrangements,
• it made application for admission to the UN and was accepted,
• and it fought additional wars to secure its territories.

No matter what we say here tonight, no matter what we believe individually, there is a truth in the reality that Israel exists. It is a country that is recognized by the international community; including the five Arab nations that attacked it in 1948.

The Occupied Territories are a result of a continuous series of military, paramilitary, and foreign assisted insurgent activity. This conflict has lasted for so long that none of the traditional Occupation terminators have had time to engage.

Palestinians, frustrated that their take on history is not accepted, have formed into more than two dozen groups with a common cause to destroy Israel. They have intentionally interfered with every single peace effort which might extend normality. Each hostile action, meeting with failure results in their complaint that life becomes harder and more territory is seeded to Israeli domination. Refusing to exercise any of the legal remedies on the international scene through courts and tribunals, and to formalize their arguments in a coherent litigation effort, the Palestinians persist in pursuing violence as their preferred solution.

Without regard to how unfair the've been treated, instead of seeking equity --- in a rational way --- they seek the unreasonable - backed by hostility. The Palestinian cause becomes less and less authentic in its justification and more and more demonic ias it amplifies the "Death to Israel" mantra they have adopted under the false religious guise of Islam; and attempt to rationalize the continued conflict as a "heroic freedom fighting" effort or "resistance movement" shielding themselves by launching weapons from civilian population centers.

They have consistently demonstrated that they are not interested in the economic, industrial, manufacturing development of the territories they purport to control. There government is a cross between to terrorist factions that are at odds with each other and conduction bombing and ambushes on any target of opportunity, suicide bombing, indiscriminate rocket attacks, and complain that they should not be arrested because they are freedom fighters.

While there are many potential allies that believe the Israeli position needs to be reigned-in, they lose that support in the conduct of their anti-peace activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

I guess you do not disagree with this part of my post.

Anyone moving to Palestine to obtain citizenship and to be a part of Palestine's population can also enjoy the right to self determination. Indeed, one of the goals of the Palestine Mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

However, that is not what happened in Palestine. The vast majority of Jews who moved to Palestine were imported by the Zionists not to be a part of Palestine but to populate a separate Jewish state inside Palestine.

Israel was created by foreigners, on behalf of a foreign organization, without the consent of the Palestinians, and imposed on Palestine by military force.

 

[irosie91]

Had the TINNIE model come to fruition-----Palestine would have followed the same
path that brought ---to the delight of Tinnie----a genocide, rape and enslavement
fest upon the christian population of SUDAN ---to the delight of tinnie and all his
fellow islamo nazis

Had the TINNIE model come to fruition-----the fate of the Israeli kids woudl be the
same as the IN EXCESS of a million babies who died of starvation in Biafra ----TO
THE DELIGHT OF BOTH TINNIE AND SHERRI

---and then the hindu kids who stumbled and died in the dust ---fleeing the same
filth in east pakistan------1971

try to live with it tinnie and sherri------you failed this time-----over the dead
bodies of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS ----but this time you failed

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While it may appear that I disagree with your every word, and that I'm 100% pro-Israeli, I asure you, that is not the case. Although I do lean more towards the Israeli side than I do on the side of the Palestinian.

I was just curious because you did not refute anything I posted but you did continue to post like you had not seen the information I posted.

(COMMENT)

As I have mentioned many times, I do believe the Palestinians have several valid causes for action; relative to several different aspects of the overall Arab-Israeli dispute set. I totally disagree with the way they have chosen as a solution.

While I agree in the right of the Jewish State to exist, and their right to self defense, I disagree entirely on their management of the Occupied Territories; and their stance and claims to the City of Jerusalem. And I think that there are many factions in Israel that disrupt the peace process - with unreasonable claims - that go internally unchallenged. This does not fair well for the reputation of the Israeli people. The Israeli needs to demonstrate (through deeds) that they are more honest, fair and equitable with the Palestinian than the Palestinians are unto themselves. This they have not done. And this casts a grave shadow on the position the Israelis hold.

I hear that a lot but nobody has been able to say when the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

(COMMENT)

Well, I would not say that this is entirely true. Their reputation says they would if they could.

There are many facets and connections between the Palestinians and terrorists. As a young Counterintelligence Agent, we often only did real examinations on incidents that had a direct US impact.

• 5 September 1972, Munich: FATAH (Black September) killed the American David Berger, from Cleveland, Ohio, as part of the assault on the Israeli Olympic team.
  
• 2 March 2 1973, Khartoum: FATAH killed two US Diplomats Cleo Noel, and George Moore.
  
• 8 September 1974, Athens; TWA Flight 841, FATAH killed 10 Americans.
  
• 12 April 12, 1984, Torrejon; Hizballah bombing wounding 13 Americans
  
• 14 June 1985, TWA Flight hijacking: Hizballah killed Robert Stethem, US Navy Diver
  
• 8 October 1985, Cruise Ship Achille Lauro: Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) killed Leon Klinghoffer.

I retired in 1989 from the Army, and didn't really reenter the intelligence and security field until after 911. But I could continue the list, if necessary, although I think you get the point. If I had added the number Palestinian related attacks against Jewish targets, the list would go on and on.

I guess you do not disagree with this part of my post.

(COMMENT)

First, NO, I do not entirely disagree.

I recognize in myself the tendency to lapse into an argument that is tilted to one side when I'm trying to make a point. While I disagree with the implication of your point, on the manner of immigration was contrary to the intent of the mandate, that it somehow justifies the violence for these many decades; it is not a legitimate solution. But there was sufficient truth there for me not to challenge the salient points you made. So I let it stand unchallenged - for the discussion group to balance on their own.

In the course of these many discussion, you have made a number of points which, in litigation, have substancial weight in the establishing just cause for some remedy in equity to be made in the name of the Palestinian People. I might add, that, from time-to-time, our co-discussant "SherriMunnerlyn" has as well. But I argue that none of it rises to the level of justification for the scope and intensity for the continued violence and mayhem that has characterized the Palestinian struggle. And it certainly doesn't justify, in any way whatsoever, the implication that the Palestinian People are engaged in some "Holy War" (Jihad) sanctioned by the Supreme Being.

It is not what you say that is so disagreeable, but the implication that somehow, these facts establish a just cause. It does not. The Palestinian conflict, without question, was initiated by the Palestinians and the Arab World, now supported by the Iranians, and continues to this day without having exhausted all the non-violent legal remedies at hand. And that sets the character for the Palestinians.

No matter what the cause, no matter what the religious context, no matter what land grant tort you establish, no matter what historical fact you uncover, there is absolutely no justification for the unrestrained violence. How could any people justify killing a very old retired businessman who was in a wheelchair, and dumping his body overboard? No, there is no justification. But it does establish the character and nature of the Palestinian and those in their support.

So rather than address the validity of the factual evidence you rendered, which is (in some measure) sound, I chose to let it stand on the reputation built by those that claim foul.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[jillian]

P F Tinmore, georgephillip, irosie91, et al,

One cannot understand the development of today's situation unless one understands two critical points:

• That the Arab and Palestinian have not been in control since before the Ottoman Empire.
• That under the British Mandate, there was the intention of establishing a Jewish Homeland.

Indeed, the stated goal of the Zionists for the last hundred years is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. All of Israel's actions have been to fulfill that goal.

(COMMENT)

You are still living in the 19th Century. While "all of Palestine" may have been a dream at one time, in 1948, they did not ask for all of Palestine. They asked for the piece of the territory promised by the Mandate.

The expansion and Occupation came as an outcome by subsequent aggression by the Palestinians and Arab States. You cannot blame the lost of territory on a war started by the Arab and Palestinian. If the Arab had not attempted to militarily conquer the Israeli, there would still be an Israel bounded by the 1948 borders.


(COMMENT)

What foreigners. Jewish Immigration?

First, the territory was not Palestinian. It was under British Mandate, and before that, Ottoman. This is just an excuse because of the greedy and barbaric actions of the Arab and Palestinian, they lost ground.

How much better off would the Palestinian and Arab be if they had not been aggressive?

Most Respectfully,
R

How much better off would the Palestinian and Arab be if they had not been aggressive?

I hear that a lot but nobody has been able to say when the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

and none of you rabid terrorist supporting liars have ever once been able to say what type of state was a 'palestinian' state... or what type of government it had... or who it's leaders were... or it's trading partners....

because there wasn't any such thing as an arab palestinian state. they're jordanians. go bother queen noor and ask her why she's not letting her people have their right of return.

 

[irosie91]

I am fascinated with the use of the word "ATTACK"

from tinmore....
"I hear that a lot but nobody has been able to say when
the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists".



I wonder if tinmore can tell us why he locates
ZIONISTS in europe-----and why and WHEN
does he fantasize an attack by
"palestinians" on zionists ? Since until
about the 1960s the only people called
PALESTINIANS were JEWS --(zionists)
living in PALESTINE. ----he must
be talking about a TERRORIST
ATTACK ON ZIONIST JEWS LIVING
IN EUROPE---by some palestinian
terrorists There were some
islamic terrorist attacks on Jews ----
in europe----but I do not recall a
specifically "palestinian" attack

ANYONE ???

the next question is --what
is the point of the question?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While it may appear that I disagree with your every word, and that I'm 100% pro-Israeli, I asure you, that is not the case. Although I do lean more towards the Israeli side than I do on the side of the Palestinian.

I was just curious because you did not refute anything I posted but you did continue to post like you had not seen the information I posted.

(COMMENT)

As I have mentioned many times, I do believe the Palestinians have several valid causes for action; relative to several different aspects of the overall Arab-Israeli dispute set. I totally disagree with the way they have chosen as a solution.

While I agree in the right of the Jewish State to exist, and their right to self defense, I disagree entirely on their management of the Occupied Territories; and their stance and claims to the City of Jerusalem. And I think that there are many factions in Israel that disrupt the peace process - with unreasonable claims - that go internally unchallenged. This does not fair well for the reputation of the Israeli people. The Israeli needs to demonstrate (through deeds) that they are more honest, fair and equitable with the Palestinian than the Palestinians are unto themselves. This they have not done. And this casts a grave shadow on the position the Israelis hold.

I hear that a lot but nobody has been able to say when the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

(COMMENT)

Well, I would not say that this is entirely true. Their reputation says they would if they could.

There are many facets and connections between the Palestinians and terrorists. As a young Counterintelligence Agent, we often only did real examinations on incidents that had a direct US impact.

• 5 September 1972, Munich: FATAH (Black September) killed the American David Berger, from Cleveland, Ohio, as part of the assault on the Israeli Olympic team.
  
• 2 March 2 1973, Khartoum: FATAH killed two US Diplomats Cleo Noel, and George Moore.
  
• 8 September 1974, Athens; TWA Flight 841, FATAH killed 10 Americans.
  
• 12 April 12, 1984, Torrejon; Hizballah bombing wounding 13 Americans
  
• 14 June 1985, TWA Flight hijacking: Hizballah killed Robert Stethem, US Navy Diver
  
• 8 October 1985, Cruise Ship Achille Lauro: Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) killed Leon Klinghoffer.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my question. The topic at hand was your allegation of Palestinian aggression. To determine who is aggressive and who is defensive we need to know who started the conflict. Hence my question.

Did the Palestinians go to Europe and attack the Zionists or was it the Zionists who went to Palestine?

Your list of attacks are all in the middle of the conflict, not the beginning, and are irrelevant to the question at hand.

I retired in 1989 from the Army, and didn't really reenter the intelligence and security field until after 911. But I could continue the list, if necessary, although I think you get the point. If I had added the number Palestinian related attacks against Jewish targets, the list would go on and on.

I guess you do not disagree with this part of my post.

(COMMENT)

First, NO, I do not entirely disagree.

I recognize in myself the tendency to lapse into an argument that is tilted to one side when I'm trying to make a point. While I disagree with the implication of your point, on the manner of immigration was contrary to the intent of the mandate, that it somehow justifies the violence for these many decades; it is not a legitimate solution. But there was sufficient truth there for me not to challenge the salient points you made. So I let it stand unchallenged - for the discussion group to balance on their own.

Immigration was a major part in the conflict. The Zionists went to Palestine with the stated goal of taking over Palestine. Britain affirmed this by having the Balfour declaration in its pocket.

The massive immigration of Jewish settlers was a necessary and very visible part of the implementation of this plan. Did they expect the Palestinians to sit on their hands while watching their country being taken over?

In the course of these many discussion, you have made a number of points which, in litigation, have substancial weight in the establishing just cause for some remedy in equity to be made in the name of the Palestinian People. I might add, that, from time-to-time, our co-discussant "SherriMunnerlyn" has as well. But I argue that none of it rises to the level of justification for the scope and intensity for the continued violence and mayhem that has characterized the Palestinian struggle. And it certainly doesn't justify, in any way whatsoever, the implication that the Palestinian People are engaged in some "Holy War" (Jihad) sanctioned by the Supreme Being.

It is not what you say that is so disagreeable, but the implication that somehow, these facts establish a just cause. It does not. The Palestinian conflict, without question, was initiated by the Palestinians and the Arab World, now supported by the Iranians, and continues to this day without having exhausted all the non-violent legal remedies at hand. And that sets the character for the Palestinians.

I think the evidence clearly shows that the Palestinians are and have always been on the defensive in this conflict.

No matter what the cause, no matter what the religious context, no matter what land grant tort you establish, no matter what historical fact you uncover, there is absolutely no justification for the unrestrained violence. How could any people justify killing a very old retired businessman who was in a wheelchair, and dumping his body overboard? No, there is no justification. But it does establish the character and nature of the Palestinian and those in their support.

So rather than address the validity of the factual evidence you rendered, which is (in some measure) sound, I chose to let it stand on the reputation built by those that claim foul.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yours,
Paul

 

[irosie91]

Mr R I think you are missing a point very important to tinnie----
He characterizes the migration of jews in the 1800s to
"palestine" as a violent attack by european jews with an agenda
to violently wrest all of "palestine" from the ottomans and
arab-muslims living there----even including TRANSJORDAN and
Gaza and parts of Syria ---etc etc "palestine" was not clearly
defined as such during the days of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE----
-I am not sure if it included Gaza--but at times it seems to
have included Trans Jordan and southern Syria.
His "attack" by "european jews" takes place in the
1800s which justifies violent resistence by arab muslims
during the later part of the 1800s and the early 1900s.
It is actually true that arab muslims feared a kind of
battle to create a jewish caliphate out of a huge part
of the middle east were sure that this entity would
be a continually expanding empire if it was not destroyed -----
Ie a replay of the islamic action in the area a millenium
earlier but instead of "MUSLIM RULE" ---"JEWISH RULE"

I learned this interpretation of events ----from muslims--
long ago------starting before 1967. They seemed to think
me very naive----(which would be typical for a female--thus
I was TOLD THE FACTS ) for imagining it not to be so.

There is an emphasis on EUROPEAN invasion---because the
europeans would not fit into a shariah society. Arab
muslims did admit that there were some jews already
living in the area but they generally had DHIMMIA
experience somewhere in their family legacy and
could go on in that capacity-----but they were
very much against an ENLARGED jewish population
no matter its origin -----but european was absolutely
not acceptable to them----not good dhimmi material

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, irosie91, et al,

Ah, getting to the knitty-gritty!

Mr R I think you are missing a point very important to tinnie---- He characterizes the migration of jews in the 1800s to "palestine" as a violent attack by european jews with an agenda to violently wrest all of "palestine" from the ottomans and arab-muslims living there ---- even including TRANSJORDAN and Gaza and parts of Syria --- etc etc "palestine" was not clearly defined as such during the days of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE ----- I am not sure if it included Gaza -- but at times it seems to have included Trans Jordan and southern Syria. His "attack" by "european jews" takes place in the 1800s which justifies violent resistence by arab muslims
during the later part of the 1800s and the early 1900s. ... ... ...

(COMMENT)

I'm a bit slow, but I'm getting there. I think (not entirely sure) I know where this is going.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my question. The topic at hand was your allegation of Palestinian aggression. To determine who is aggressive and who is defensive we need to know who started the conflict. Hence my question.​

Did the Palestinians go to Europe and attack the Zionists or was it the Zionists who went to Palestine?

• (The Background)

Your list of attacks are all in the middle of the conflict, not the beginning, and are irrelevant to the question at hand.​

Immigration was a major part in the conflict. The Zionists went to Palestine with the stated goal of taking over Palestine. Britain affirmed this by having the Balfour declaration in its pocket.

The massive immigration of Jewish settlers was a necessary and very visible part of the implementation of this plan.​

Did they expect the Palestinians to sit on their hands while watching their country being taken over?​

​

(COMMENT)

I think I see four (4) distinct issues here:

• Who started the conflict.
• Palestinian aggression.
• Palestinians go to Europe 'vs' Zionists went to Palestine.
• Palestinians watching their country being taken over.

Who started the conflict is partly based on when you think the conflict started.

[My Understanding of History (Thumbnail)]

The Jewish People (or The People of Israel, whichever you prefer) are often historically placed in the Region of Palestine (a later Roman designation) dating back to the time of Joshua, some 3 millenium ago (maybe further, being Catholic, my Hebrew history is rather weak). But as I understand it, King David (of David and Goliath fame, a story taught to all Christian children) unified the Hebrew tribes and reigned over the first Kingdom of Israel (sometimes referred to in later times as Judea). It covered almost all of today's Palestine [less an area known as Philistia (in Hebrew "Peleshet") (known today as Gaza)]. Philistia was ruled by the people known as Philistines. (Oddly enough, I'm told that in Hebrew "Peleshet" means the "land of immigrants or invaders." These are the precursors to the Roman word Palestine. Now who would have guested.) Since that time, the entire landscape of today's Palestine, has been rule by the Babylonian, Persian, Greek Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Islamic and Christian crusaders, Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire. But never by a people known as Palestinians (except for Gaza, as I said, who would have ever guessed; fact is stranger than fiction).​

My point to this little thumbnail is, if you go back in history far enough, you might get some startling results. And I also wanted to demonstrate how absurd it is to arbitrarily pick a starting point for the feud (Jew 'vs' Muslim or Israeli 'vs' Palestinian, or however you want to frame it) based on a snapshot in time. While we can say that the "original invaders" were historically Palestinian from Gaza, 3 Millenium ago, you can see how far removed that finding is from the reality of today. So it is with your arbitrary selection of time in the Jewish Immigration of (today's) Palestine.

Reality dictates that the reasonableness of the events that have led to the outcomes we see today, started in the European-WWII era; give or take a decade.

Having said that, I will not challenge the suggestion that Zionist planned and intentionally organized the gradual immigration of Jewish Families into the Mandate. There is little question that by the turn into the 20th Century, loans through largely Arab Banks (Anglo-Palestine Bank) were being secured to finance Jewish businesses and agricultural cooperatives in the Mandate. By the early 1930's, due largely to the persecution of Jews in Germany, these efforts were being ratcheted-up, at a pace commensurate to Nazi activity against European Jews. By the time the US entered WWII, Jewish immigration efforts had begun to take-on a large scale image, as the activities of the German Concentration Camps became incrementally known. By the end of WW-II, as the totality of the German cleansing efforts became revealed, the Jewish immigration effort began to operate at a feverishly rapid pace. The world, less the hard core anti-semitic, began to show great sympathy for the surviving Jews. Especially as stories were now openly being told of how countries like America turned away those desperately trying to escape Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Stories like the "Ship of the Damned" (SS St. Louis) were recounted, and it became obvious that the Jewish People needed a homeland. You may ask: What's your point? Well, while we may attribute much of the idea that a Jewish Homeland was important to the Zionist, in the decade immediately following WW-II (driven by the Greatest of all Generations), there was an exponential explosion in support for the Jewish People in establishing a safe haven.

Did the post-WW-II Palestinian see a massive influx in the legal and illegal immigration of Jewish Families returning to their ancestral homeland. Absolutely! This was truly the start of the discord and why.

I think the evidence clearly shows that the Palestinians are and have always been on the defensive in this conflict.

(COMMENT)

The evidence clearly shows that the Arab Culture, particularly in regards to the Palestinian, was anti-Semitic, having a grave intolerance to ANY foreign migration, and was totally immersed in themselves, not having any sympathy for the Jewish Plight that had just occurred. The surrounding governments looked at Israel, in a post-WW-II eye, as prime real-estate and (although they could not develop it on their own), wanted it for themselves and found the Jewish immigrant as unworthy. (Fight-on!)

Again, let me emphasize!

No matter what the cause, no matter what the religious context, no matter what land grant tort you establish, no matter what historical fact you uncover, there is absolutely no justification for the unrestrained violence. How could any people justify killing a very old retired businessman who was in a wheelchair, and dumping his body overboard? No, there is no justification. But it does establish the character and nature of the Palestinian and those in their support.

So rather than address the validity of the factual evidence you rendered, which is (in some measure) sound, I chose to let it stand on the reputation built by those that claim foul.

The Palestinian never govern the land, never developed it to its potential, and never shared it with those culturally associated with it. They were never invaded, they were never attacked. And they never attempted to establish their own sovereignty. In an attempt to overcome by force, those that did, they made their plight worse. And now they want to concoct a conspiracy theory to justify the failed barbaric actions that have worsen their position.

• Who started the conflict.
  
  ANS: The Arabs and Palestinians​
• Palestinian aggression.
  
  ANS: Yes, they attempted to take what they could not earn on their own.​
• Palestinians go to Europe 'vs' Zionists went to Palestine.
  
  ANS: Yes, Zionists went to Palestine; and the whole world helped them (a bit late) in the end.​
• Palestinians watching their country being taken over.
  
  ANS: It was never their country. They have trouble making a lunch, let alone a nation.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

tinnie----I do not get your point. You provided a kind of collage
of questionable and muddled impressions regarding the history of
"palestine" and then asserted that what seems in your mind
to be some sort of fixed historic population in "palestine"
witnessing hordes of europeans invading their space. Your
impressions are very superficial almost as childish as defining
David as the guy who threw a rock at Goliath and Jonah
as the guy who got eaten by a whale-----but I understand----
I did go to sunday school a few times with
a christian playmate. It did not happen that way.
The people who you now call palestinians were not a
single "nation" ----they consisted of fragments of
many "peoples" and included Bedouins who
were densely illiterate and involved with their tents
and sheep and subsistence living.
---there were some---other subsistence
living little groups who were something like
tenant workers on Ottoman owned land ----
there were extremely dilapidated
cities---like Jerusalem---in ruins ---Jaffa
---all disconnected from each other.
THE RULERS you describe----were almost
simply NOT THERE. ie just because the area was
"part of an empire" ---does did not lways
mean that the EMPIRE had much to do with the
situation---sometimes a lot and sometimes --
barely there. In the 1800s ---
when jews started buying land ---your concept
that there was something like an invasion
is silly----they were barely noticed.
The arabs of the area knew jews.
The arabs of the area were in and out
of places that had jews. Syria, Lebanon, Egypt----
never stopped having jews -- nor did palestine.
For some reason the story that is being told LEAVES
jews out of the landscape until EUROPEANS suddenly
appeared. In fact jews were never entirely out
of the landscape of the middle east. And arab
muslims knew who were jews---because of the
laws that mediated something like LEGAL
DRESS. These weird rules were started
in the time of CONSTANTINE (like 300 ad)
and never went entirely went away. They
were INSERTED into shariah law.
Another reality is that the population of
palestine itself was IN FlUX for centuries---
-jews who lived in the middle east moved about --
but muslims who lived there moved about
even more. Stories of FIXED ARAB
populations in palestine over millenia are silly--
or fixed PRE ISLAMIC populations other
than jews----are silly. Fact is the only
actual fixed GROUP that stayed there
for very long times were----small enclaves
of jews ---and even smaller---of SAMARITANS.

as to DEFENSE ---when you consider
ARABS---think arab. Tribal culture.
Something like the Indians of North
america. They fight each other and
anyone else available intermittently

The history of
arabs in Palestine is not that much
different from arabs in arabia ---and
that which is happening in Syria and
Yemen today ----tribal warfare. The islamic
revisionist history describes the jews in
arabia as ----just a few more arab tribes
who happened to be jews. Your thinking
is as simplistic as is theirs. Today --yemen is
an arabian tribal society. The jews who
were in Yemen as jews for millenia---never
became TRIBAL JEWS ---in fact---they were
never entirely disconnected either from
palestine ---or even from jews in other
parts of the world. I can expand on that issue
some other time

 

[georgephillip]

650,000 Jews.
1.2 million Arabs!
Jewish State?

 

[irosie91]

650,000 Jews.
1.2 million Arabs!
Jewish State?

you seem to have forgotten-----MANDATE PALESTINE was partitioned The entire
area called PALESTINE varied ----from one moment to the next and sometimes
included transjordan ALL OF WHICH was handed over to arabs and parts of SYRIA also
handed over to arabs ALSO the reason there were only 650,000 jews
IN PALESTINE was because a large number were IMPRISONED in shariah shit holes.
My husband's family spent at least nine years trying to escape the shariah shit hole
of his birth losing members along the way and then there are the babies with slit
throats upon whose bodies you dance with joy
My grandfather was one of ten----he lost five brothers
to your hero adolf abu ali hitler------
(he came to the USA before hitler took austria HIS ONE SURVIVING brother
----died trying to get into palestine just after world war II --remember?
the brits gave into the demands of your fellow islamo nazi pigs and blocked
the ports The existence of Israel is justified even if only two jews SURVIVED
YOUR STENCH AND FILTH to live in it, JUST AS SOUTH SUDAN is justified even
if only three christians surived YOUR STINK AND DEPRAVITY....
YOU LEAVE OUT LOTS gotohell piece of shit. Your islamo nazi pig
concept of DEMOCRACY is ---"FIRST WE MURDER THEM and
then we demand "ONE MAN, ONE VOTE" AN EMULATION OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE GENOCIDE COMITTED BY THE RAPIST PIG IN ARABIA in
order to create a society that LICKS ONE ASS forever
Your ideology remains disgusting

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Jewish People (or The People of Israel, whichever you prefer) are often historically placed in the Region of Palestine (a later Roman designation) dating back to the time of Joshua, some 3 millenium ago (maybe further, being Catholic, my Hebrew history is rather weak). But as I understand it, King David (of David and Goliath fame, a story taught to all Christian children) unified the Hebrew tribes and reigned over the first Kingdom of Israel (sometimes referred to in later times as Judea). It covered almost all of today's Palestine [less an area known as Philistia (in Hebrew "Peleshet") (known today as Gaza)]. Philistia was ruled by the people known as Philistines. (Oddly enough, I'm told that in Hebrew "Peleshet" means the "land of immigrants or invaders." These are the precursors to the Roman word Palestine. Now who would have guested.) Since that time, the entire landscape of today's Palestine, has been rule by the Babylonian, Persian, Greek Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Islamic and Christian crusaders, Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire. But never by a people known as Palestinians (except for Gaza, as I said, who would have ever guessed; fact is stranger than fiction).​

My point to this little thumbnail is, if you go back in history far enough, you might get some startling results. And I also wanted to demonstrate how absurd it is to arbitrarily pick a starting point for the feud (Jew 'vs' Muslim or Israeli 'vs' Palestinian, or however you want to frame it) based on a snapshot in time. While we can say that the "original invaders" were historically Palestinian from Gaza, 3 Millenium ago, you can see how far removed that finding is from the reality of today. So it is with your arbitrary selection of time in the Jewish Immigration of (today's) Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

I do not question the accuracy of your post as much as I question the relevance. How many countries in the world do not have a checkered past of conquest and imposed rule? How does that negate the rights of the Palestinians to Palestine?

Post war treaties created a handful of countries in the region. None of those people had lived under self rule. Why are the Palestinians unique?

1922 is not an arbitrary time. That time period saw the creation of Palestine and its neighboring states. It is a common time in the history of the region.

 

[irosie91]

you said nothing Tinnie-----Jews have also lived in the middle east----and as a "nation"
for a lot longer than have the newly founded "palestinians" As a nation ---jews
are just as ENTITLED to a country as the unwashed hashemite things. The issue in
the middle east -----in the minds of you and your fellow islamo nazi pigs is not
something DENIED the people you now call "palestinians" ---it is the fact of the
existence of a """ "ZIONIST ENTITY" the "HEART OF THE ARAB WORLD" """"
<<<< read that arabist, islamicist fascist SHIT

somehow the heart of the "arab world" cannot find room for their
BELOVED BRETHEREN----because the JOOOOOS take up a few
inches

your filth is showing, tinnie

 

[P F Tinmore]

you said nothing Tinnie-----Jews have also lived in the middle east----and as a "nation"
for a lot longer than have the newly founded "palestinians" As a nation ---jews
are just as ENTITLED to a country as the unwashed hashemite things. The issue in
the middle east -----in the minds of you and your fellow islamo nazi pigs is not
something DENIED the people you now call "palestinians" ---it is the fact of the
existence of a """ "ZIONIST ENTITY" the "HEART OF THE ARAB WORLD" """"
<<<< read that arabist, islamicist fascist SHIT

somehow the heart of the "arab world" cannot find room for their
BELOVED BRETHEREN----because the JOOOOOS take up a few
inches

your filth is showing, tinnie

somehow the heart of the "arab world" cannot find room for their
BELOVED BRETHEREN----because the JOOOOOS take up a few
inches

Not true. The Jews were living in Palestine side by side with their Muslim and Christian neighbors before the Zionist invasion.

When the Palestinians defined who was a Palestinian they included the native Jews as citizens.

Even today, Jews are considered equal to other Palestinians in their constitution.

 

[irosie91]

you said nothing Tinnie-----Jews have also lived in the middle east----and as a "nation"
for a lot longer than have the newly founded "palestinians" As a nation ---jews
are just as ENTITLED to a country as the unwashed hashemite things. The issue in
the middle east -----in the minds of you and your fellow islamo nazi pigs is not
something DENIED the people you now call "palestinians" ---it is the fact of the
existence of a """ "ZIONIST ENTITY" the "HEART OF THE ARAB WORLD" """"
<<<< read that arabist, islamicist fascist SHIT

somehow the heart of the "arab world" cannot find room for their
BELOVED BRETHEREN----because the JOOOOOS take up a few
inches

your filth is showing, tinnie

somehow the heart of the "arab world" cannot find room for their
BELOVED BRETHEREN----because the JOOOOOS take up a few
inches

Not true. The Jews were living in Palestine side by side with their Muslim and Christian neighbors before the Zionist invasion.

When the Palestinians defined who was a Palestinian they included the native Jews as citizens.

Even today, Jews are considered equal to other Palestinians in their constitution.

LOL try again tinnie-----My own husband was born in a middle east shariah
shit hole-----THAT situation has provided me with HUNDREDS of relatives
who would laugh in your idiot face at that "equal" idea----even in Egypt ---
non muslims were NEVER "equal" to muslims----neither christians nor jews.
Never was and never will be. Such a concept is an AFFRONT TO ISLAM.

Even in the best of times and the most moderate of places----apparent
equality is at the very best ---not quite and very ephemeral in any country
with a muslim majority----and often even those with a significant muslim
minority-----there are PROBLEMS for more information on that idea---
talk to christians, jews, zoroastrians and even hindus from MUMBAI.

Mumbai is amazingly diverse----and ----COHESIVE in the face of that
diversity--------except for-----well----you know who.

 

[P F Tinmore]

you said nothing Tinnie-----Jews have also lived in the middle east----and as a "nation"
for a lot longer than have the newly founded "palestinians" As a nation ---jews
are just as ENTITLED to a country as the unwashed hashemite things. The issue in
the middle east -----in the minds of you and your fellow islamo nazi pigs is not
something DENIED the people you now call "palestinians" ---it is the fact of the
existence of a """ "ZIONIST ENTITY" the "HEART OF THE ARAB WORLD" """"
<<<< read that arabist, islamicist fascist SHIT

somehow the heart of the "arab world" cannot find room for their
BELOVED BRETHEREN----because the JOOOOOS take up a few
inches

your filth is showing, tinnie

somehow the heart of the "arab world" cannot find room for their
BELOVED BRETHEREN----because the JOOOOOS take up a few
inches

Not true. The Jews were living in Palestine side by side with their Muslim and Christian neighbors before the Zionist invasion.

When the Palestinians defined who was a Palestinian they included the native Jews as citizens.

Even today, Jews are considered equal to other Palestinians in their constitution.

LOL try again tinnie-----My own husband was born in a middle east shariah
shit hole-----THAT situation has provided me with HUNDREDS of relatives
who would laugh in your idiot face at that "equal" idea----even in Egypt ---
non muslims were NEVER "equal" to muslims----neither christians nor jews.
Never was and never will be. Such a concept is an AFFRONT TO ISLAM.

Even in the best of times and the most moderate of places----apparent
equality is at the very best ---not quite and very ephemeral in any country
with a muslim majority----and often even those with a significant muslim
minority-----there are PROBLEMS for more information on that idea---
talk to christians, jews, zoroastrians and even hindus from MUMBAI.

Mumbai is amazingly diverse----and ----COHESIVE in the face of that
diversity--------except for-----well----you know who.

LOL try again tinnie-----My own husband was born in a middle east shariah
shit hole-----

Not in Palestine though.

Irrelevant.

 

[irosie91]

Not true. The Jews were living in Palestine side by side with their Muslim and Christian neighbors before the Zionist invasion.

When the Palestinians defined who was a Palestinian they included the native Jews as citizens.

Even today, Jews are considered equal to other Palestinians in their constitution.

LOL try again tinnie-----My own husband was born in a middle east shariah
shit hole-----THAT situation has provided me with HUNDREDS of relatives
who would laugh in your idiot face at that "equal" idea----even in Egypt ---
non muslims were NEVER "equal" to muslims----neither christians nor jews.
Never was and never will be. Such a concept is an AFFRONT TO ISLAM.

Even in the best of times and the most moderate of places----apparent
equality is at the very best ---not quite and very ephemeral in any country
with a muslim majority----and often even those with a significant muslim
minority-----there are PROBLEMS for more information on that idea---
talk to christians, jews, zoroastrians and even hindus from MUMBAI.

Mumbai is amazingly diverse----and ----COHESIVE in the face of that
diversity--------except for-----well----you know who.

LOL try again tinnie-----My own husband was born in a middle east shariah
shit hole-----

Not in Palestine though.

Irrelevant.

What are we calling "PALESTINE" tinnie? He was rescued from the shariah
shit hole as an infant----and brought to palestine. His papers were stamped
PALESTINIAN because he was a jew---unlike the arabs in the neighborhood
----whom the brits did not call "PALESTINIAN"

I have encountered people from shariah shit holes whose parents arrived very early in
the 20th century-----and others who remember their arrival in the 1920s
Where is this place you know of where muslims and jews and christians
are "equal" ??? Of course the CLAIM of equality does show up
on some of the constitutions even of shariah shit holes