Who Are The Palestinains?

[RoccoR]

toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, they rejected the participation in the Partition Plan; but not independence.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You read so much into an isolated word.


(OBSERVATION)



(COMMENT)

In all "trusts" - there are "obligations." As is often paraphrased from the FDR speech for the Jefferson Day Dinner in 1945: "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility."

First, the Mandate was on behalf of the League of Nations, and NOT (repeat) NOT on behalf of the people of Palestine (as defined in the Palestine Order in Council - meaning: territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.); or any other individual state.

Second, the obligation of the Mandatory is to the League of Nations:



There is no question in my mind - that at the end of the day - come the termination of the Mandate, that the inhabitants had reached a more advanced stage of development and their independence could, in principle, be recognized by the Covenant itself; and that there be the establishment of the Jewish national home in the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine and internationally --- all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

There are a few points to be made here.

• The Mandatory (the UK in this case), is subordinate to the Covenant (the League of Nations), just the dame as an appointed Trustee is subordinate to the will of the Court in civil law. The Mandate itself is not written in stone, but pliable to the will of the Covenant.

• The obligation is to the Covenant, with the idea that the best interest of the people are looked after, yet not always what the indigenous population may want (parental oversight).

• You will notice that the Mandate speaks of "self-governing institutions" (plural). Meaning that more than one institution may be established.

• And finally, "self-governance" was never established geographically (except for Trans Jordan), nor was there a specification on how to establish a Jewish National Home. There was never an outline establish limiting the scope and nature of either how to affect a Jewish National Home or self-governing institutions. (That would not come until the Resolution of 1947.)

Of course, through the process - no one can argue successfully that the Arab indigenous population did not have a right to a self-governing institution. But the expanse, scope and nature of such was never defined until 1947.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you say all that. I don't see the relevance.

It is clear who the Palestinians were and that the mandate was supposed to bring them to independence.

'Was supposed to bring them them to independence'

This is true. The problem is, the Palestinians rejected independence.

(COMMENT)

The odd thing is, that if they had accepted participation in the Partition Plan, they would have been better-off than attempting to take by force what they could not negotiate.

Forty years later, when they final do acknowledge the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), they found themselves will less than what they started with.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, they rejected the participation in the Partition Plan; but not independence.

Why do you say all that. I don't see the relevance.

It is clear who the Palestinians were and that the mandate was supposed to bring them to independence.

'Was supposed to bring them them to independence'

This is true. The problem is, the Palestinians rejected independence.

(COMMENT)

The odd thing is, that if they had accepted participation in the Partition Plan, they would have been better-off than attempting to take by force what they could not negotiate.

Forty years later, when they final do acknowledge the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), they found themselves will less than what they started with.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were "offered" to give 55% of their country to foreign settlers.

Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Give me some names.

 

[MJB12741]

HUH??? What Palestinian country are you referring to?

toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, they rejected the participation in the Partition Plan; but not independence.

'Was supposed to bring them them to independence'

This is true. The problem is, the Palestinians rejected independence.

(COMMENT)

The odd thing is, that if they had accepted participation in the Partition Plan, they would have been better-off than attempting to take by force what they could not negotiate.

Forty years later, when they final do acknowledge the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), they found themselves will less than what they started with.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were "offered" to give 55% of their country to foreign settlers.

Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Give me some names.

 

[Roudy]

toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, they rejected the participation in the Partition Plan; but not independence.

'Was supposed to bring them them to independence'

This is true. The problem is, the Palestinians rejected independence.

(COMMENT)

The odd thing is, that if they had accepted participation in the Partition Plan, they would have been better-off than attempting to take by force what they could not negotiate.

Forty years later, when they final do acknowledge the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), they found themselves will less than what they started with.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were "offered" to give 55% of their country to foreign settlers.

Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Give me some names.

Ha ha ha. There has never been a country called Palestine. The land belonged to the Ottoman Empire for 700 years and then then under the control of the British after that.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I guess this is a good question.

toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, they rejected the participation in the Partition Plan; but not independence.

'Was supposed to bring them them to independence'

This is true. The problem is, the Palestinians rejected independence.

(COMMENT)

The odd thing is, that if they had accepted participation in the Partition Plan, they would have been better-off than attempting to take by force what they could not negotiate.

Forty years later, when they final do acknowledge the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), they found themselves will less than what they started with.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were "offered" to give 55% of their country to foreign settlers.

Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Give me some names.

(COMMENT)


After all, what Palestinian in their right mind would pass-up the opportunity to go to war for 40 years first, then get less territory?

You're right --- Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, they rejected the participation in the Partition Plan; but not independence.

'Was supposed to bring them them to independence'

This is true. The problem is, the Palestinians rejected independence.

(COMMENT)

The odd thing is, that if they had accepted participation in the Partition Plan, they would have been better-off than attempting to take by force what they could not negotiate.

Forty years later, when they final do acknowledge the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), they found themselves will less than what they started with.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were "offered" to give 55% of their country to foreign settlers.

Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Give me some names.

What country are you talking about?

 

[Lipush]

I have a new contract so will have to beg off for awhile. I'll post a little video or something every day, but will be back in a few, need to do some writing.

Oh, no, more trolling

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I guess this is a good question.

toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, they rejected the participation in the Partition Plan; but not independence.


(COMMENT)

The odd thing is, that if they had accepted participation in the Partition Plan, they would have been better-off than attempting to take by force what they could not negotiate.

Forty years later, when they final do acknowledge the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), they found themselves will less than what they started with.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were "offered" to give 55% of their country to foreign settlers.

Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Give me some names.

(COMMENT)


After all, what Palestinian in their right mind would pass-up the opportunity to go to war for 40 years first, then get less territory?

You're right --- Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Most Respectfully,
R

How do you know how much land the Palestinians will have when the war is over?

 

[MHunterB]

"And by the way, Billo. You don't know anything about me, as a person. So don't try and psych me out. That pisses me off. All you know about me is what I let you see on this messageboard. I know I'm way far from perfect, but don't try and pretend like you can know or read me.

That's beyond rude.! "

You're right, Lipush: it's Billo-bully's charming l'il way of trying to dominate you. And just like when a Chihuahua tries to dry-hump someone's leg - even though it's gross, we all laugh at the l'il beast's antics : ))

 

[MHunterB]

"How do you know how much land the Palestinians will have when the war is over? "

You're joking, right? Decades of past experience as an example.....there's a trend involved.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a simple matter of subtraction.

I guess this is a good question.

The Palestinians were "offered" to give 55% of their country to foreign settlers.

Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Give me some names.

(COMMENT)


After all, what Palestinian in their right mind would pass-up the opportunity to go to war for 40 years first, then get less territory?

You're right --- Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Most Respectfully,
R

How do you know how much land the Palestinians will have when the war is over?

(COMMENT)

Take the land allotted in Resolution 181(II) (See Map Attachment) and compare it to the State of Palestine of today:

Can't you see a different?

Like you say, the "war" is not over yet, but as long as the Palestinian prolong it in their attempt to acquire more land by force (Jihad and Armed Struggle), the more control they lose. It has been going in that direction for six decades. How much more control do the Palestinians want to lose?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a simple matter of subtraction.

I guess this is a good question.


(COMMENT)


After all, what Palestinian in their right mind would pass-up the opportunity to go to war for 40 years first, then get less territory?

You're right --- Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Most Respectfully,
R

How do you know how much land the Palestinians will have when the war is over?

(COMMENT)

Take the land allotted in Resolution 181(II) (See Map Attachment) and compare it to the State of Palestine of today:

Can't you see a different?

Like you say, the "war" is not over yet, but as long as the Palestinian prolong it in their attempt to acquire more land by force (Jihad and Armed Struggle), the more control they lose. It has been going in that direction for six decades. How much more control do the Palestinians want to lose?

Most Respectfully,
R

Tinmore considers all of the land , including Israel, to be Palestinian land.

 

[Roudy]

toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, they rejected the participation in the Partition Plan; but not independence.


(COMMENT)

The odd thing is, that if they had accepted participation in the Partition Plan, they would have been better-off than attempting to take by force what they could not negotiate.

Forty years later, when they final do acknowledge the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), they found themselves will less than what they started with.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were "offered" to give 55% of their country to foreign settlers.

Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Give me some names.

What country are you talking about?

Timbuktu?

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a simple matter of subtraction.

I guess this is a good question.


(COMMENT)


After all, what Palestinian in their right mind would pass-up the opportunity to go to war for 40 years first, then get less territory?

You're right --- Who in the world would have accepted such an offer?

Most Respectfully,
R

How do you know how much land the Palestinians will have when the war is over?

(COMMENT)

Take the land allotted in Resolution 181(II) (See Map Attachment) and compare it to the State of Palestine of today:

Can't you see a different?

Like you say, the "war" is not over yet, but as long as the Palestinian prolong it in their attempt to acquire more land by force (Jihad and Armed Struggle), the more control they lose. It has been going in that direction for six decades. How much more control do the Palestinians want to lose?

Most Respectfully,
R

"Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity"

 

[aris2chat]

The more I worked with them and spent time in the camps and saw how the disinformation imagery and rhetoric abound.

uhh, no, you're busted. I do NOT believe you ever set foot in a camp. If so, give me one contact I can check, kunya of course.

Most of those who's name you would recognize are dead, sadly that is life in the middle east.
President's, MPs, military officers, ambassadors, UN Secretary-general, PLO officials, royalty, party member, business men, entertainers, etc. would require giving my name. I'm not comfortable with people knowing my identity or alias'. Even for practical safety it is better to use a screen name rather than your real name. I don't even use my name on social network sites.

You can accept or not what I tell you about myself. I don't care. I try to share my experience and perspective, but I still prefer to keep my privacy.

Satisfying your need for contacts or verification is no worth the risk. I'm sure you can use your imagination for what you can do with your request.

 

[Sally]

Doesn't it look like, folks, that Amity is unable to pull up this very important finding in a legitimate medical journal and also pull up news about the conference held attended by experts in this field from all over the world?.

I didn't know there was a conference.
Look, I'll give you a few more clues. There is more than one study involved, and more than one article. They were all published between 2000 and 2002. They are all in Hebrew which means I am going to have to have a friend look them up for me. And it is not a priority. It will probably take a few months. But when I find out I'll get back to you.

And that is really all I know at this point. I have a few exerpts. If you are genuinely curious enough to do the search, let me know. I kind of doubt your sincerity, though.
But if you will lift the veil from your eyes long enough to watch that video you will see that it is a credible scientific study, and then if you have any integrity at all, which I also doubt, you will admit that. You seem to have the intellectual integrity of the Stern Gang.

Perhaps it is Amity who should lift the veil from her eyes to see what is happening in the rest of the Middle East where tons of innocent people have been murdered because of their religious beliefs. I am concerned about Amity's intellectual integrity. It seems that she thinks that Israel is so bad, bad, bad while her new friends in the rest of the Middle East are angels and wouldn't harm a fly. Meanwhile, if this study were on the up and up, it would have been discussed in medical or scientific journals. After all this would be an important finding, and not only would it be in journals, there would also be a conference of experts in the field meeting to discuss the findings of this study. Meanwhat, what fun to be a Dhimwit!!!

 

[Sally]

I absolutely do not believe they know stuff from shinola the way they talk. It does not even sound familiar. Unless you can provide specifics, you're done. Nothing could be worse.

Amity, don't you realize you were done when you started. All you were doing, as another member from the Boiler Room, is repeat the same old, same old stuff readers have heard for ages.

What is this boiler room?
And look, I really do want specifics about Anis' experience. Please post them in full detail. I'm all ears. Then I'll tell you if you're full of crap or a dangerous war criminal, Anis. Its gotta be one or the other and hope its the former.

It's really none of your business what Aris did over there. Just be thankful that you didn't go through the same as she did. The one who is full of crap here is you, Amity, and maybe instead of you suggesting Aris might be a war criminal, perhaps some day you will be picked up for hiding some radical Islamists in your own apartment... As for the Boiler Room, new posters are sent in to take the place of the previous one, and they all are against Israel. For all we know, some of them might actually be writing for these radical Muslim sites. Wonder who will be the next one up here.

 

[Sally]

Why don't you tell us what this new plant will manufacture and where it is located?

Look if you really want to do something to help (and I haven't had any sense that you really DO want to help...), there are several good nonprofits that do good work, not like some guy who goes into Jordan and "sets up a plant." Genuinely good work. I like ANERA. And if you mean what you say about economic development as a means of easing tension, you will support them. It is very much needed, believe me. The average Palestinian living in a camp in Lebanon, for example, lives on $7 per day, in a country that has a cost of living not much lower than in the states. Can you imagine trying to survive on $7 a day where you live? Schools, healthcare, business loans, clothing, transportation, even good quality food are all in very short supply.

I hope that Amity doesn't mind if I prefer my money to help those Syrian children which have been made homeless by her friends. Does anyone think that Amity would ever consider helping some of those skin and bones Somali people who are dropping dead of starvation in their roads. Has anyone ever seen a Palestinian who looks like one of these starving Somalis? Can you imagine what $7 a day would do for a starving Somali? I would suggest that Amity take her plea to the oil rich countries in the Middle East so that they can help their fellow Arabs.

 

[Sally]

Yeah, Amity vets all the sources, and when it is one she doesn't like, it is FAKE in her mind, never once thinking that many think her sources are FAKE and that Arab Propaganda is the best in the world. They probably learned from those old Nazis who went to the Middle East after World War II and wrote propaganda for the Arabs.

The way I know it is a fake is that the title is "Pathetic Assholes Conspiring to Boycott Israel." That's a dead giveaway right there. It has been hijacked.

But it was never a genuine site to begin with. An easy way to find that out is to copy the site title (the real one) and enter it into your browser and see what links to it. Why do I get the feeling that one of you low level Zionist apologists set this up? Probably because it seems like a hack job.

At any rate, we're going to get you all up to speed on how to do research. If you're still oblivious after that, it'll be your own responsibility.

Oh, the good Dhimmi has speakth. Amity must think that all the posters and all the readers are actually falling for her nonsense. My that Arab propaganda is the best in the world. Perhaps Amity should get up to speed and stop using this Arab propaganda. After all, one can Google "Arab Propaganda" and find out all about it.

 

[Sally]

Amity, don't you realize you were done when you started. All you were doing, as another member from the Boiler Room, is repeat the same old, same old stuff readers have heard for ages.

The intellectual atmosphere on this particular forum is so mindlessly rote Zionist with nothing particularly useful being said that I am a breath of fresh air by comparison. And I think for that reason if for no other it needs to continue in a limited way. There are a few good and sincere souls who deserve to get some truth out of all this.

You're a breath of fresh air??? You are just the next poster up from the Boiler Room who shows up to repeat the same mindless rote Pro Pali priopaganda that the viewers have heard for ages. One of the posters was right when she asked if Amity ever sleeps. My, oh my, these gals from the Boiler Room get their batteries charged to keep them going day and night.