Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I try to not get entangled by your gross and blanket accusations. I try to be specific, you just exaggerate or obfuscate your counter response: (1/10th v 9/10th). I generally say (as an example), the Palestinians fired over 4000 rockets at Israel in the between January and August. Each Launch was a violation. You claim I've maligned or

Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.
The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in
Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I, to Fourth Geneva Convention.​

Hamas admits to rocket fire from residential areas
Terror group says ‘mistakes’ occurred, accuses Israel of ‘disproportionate response’; IDF: ‘Hamas’s excuses are outrageous, misleading and contrary to the evidence’
BY HAMZA HENDAWI AND JOSEF FEDERMAN September 12, 2014

Evidence growing that Hamas used residential areas as cover for firing rockets at Israel
Published September 12, 2014
The Israeli army says Hamas fired almost 4,000 rockets at Israel, including 600 from close to schools, mosques and other civilian facilities, and scores of mortar shells. Israel carried out some 5,000 airstrikes, in addition to using powerful artillery and gunship fire.

I say that because his posts are half truths, or 1/10 truths. He constantly blabs about 1/10 of the crimes committed by the Palestinians but never mentions the 9/10 of the crimes committed by Israel.

And besides that Israel is the original aggressor. All of the Palestinian's crimes are responses to Israel's aggression.

(COMMENT)

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel. It was they that crossed the threshold of the frontiers establishing their internationally recognized boundaries.

On the 14th May, at six o'clock exactly, according to Washington time, the end of the British Mandate over Palestine was declared. At one minute past six, the establishment of the State of Israel was declared. At eleven minutes past six, the USA recognized the State of Israel. On 15 May 1948, Arab League Forces began their incursion.
​

At no time did the newly established Jewish State of Israel take an aggressive action over the threshold of the frontier. The original aggressors (multiple) were Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

No it wasn't. You are just pimping Israeli propaganda again.

A YouTube video from presstv can't be far behind.

Rocco made a claim and he should prove his point.

Of course he won't.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I try to not get entangled by your gross and blanket accusations. I try to be specific, you just exaggerate or obfuscate your counter response: (1/10th v 9/10th). I generally say (as an example), the Palestinians fired over 4000 rockets at Israel in the between January and August. Each Launch was a violation. You claim I've maligned or

Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.
The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in
Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I, to Fourth Geneva Convention.​

Hamas admits to rocket fire from residential areas
Terror group says ‘mistakes’ occurred, accuses Israel of ‘disproportionate response’; IDF: ‘Hamas’s excuses are outrageous, misleading and contrary to the evidence’
BY HAMZA HENDAWI AND JOSEF FEDERMAN September 12, 2014

Evidence growing that Hamas used residential areas as cover for firing rockets at Israel
Published September 12, 2014
The Israeli army says Hamas fired almost 4,000 rockets at Israel, including 600 from close to schools, mosques and other civilian facilities, and scores of mortar shells. Israel carried out some 5,000 airstrikes, in addition to using powerful artillery and gunship fire.

I say that because his posts are half truths, or 1/10 truths. He constantly blabs about 1/10 of the crimes committed by the Palestinians but never mentions the 9/10 of the crimes committed by Israel.

And besides that Israel is the original aggressor. All of the Palestinian's crimes are responses to Israel's aggression.

(COMMENT)

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel. It was they that crossed the threshold of the frontiers establishing their internationally recognized boundaries.

On the 14th May, at six o'clock exactly, according to Washington time, the end of the British Mandate over Palestine was declared. At one minute past six, the establishment of the State of Israel was declared. At eleven minutes past six, the USA recognized the State of Israel. On 15 May 1948, Arab League Forces began their incursion.
​

At no time did the newly established Jewish State of Israel take an aggressive action over the threshold of the frontier. The original aggressors (multiple) were Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

No it wasn't. You are just pimping Israeli propaganda again.

A YouTube video from presstv can't be far behind.

Rocco made a claim and he should prove his point.

Of course he won't.

OK. So what does pressTV have to say on the matter.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I take a step back. Not because you are correct; but, because that is all you challenged.

Source: Department of state: Milestones
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.
​

INTERVENTION OF THE ARAB STATES IN PALESTINE. Page #416 Chapter from UN Yearbook

On April 30 the Palestine Truce Commission informed the Security Council by cablegram (S/- 732) that the situation in Palestine was deteriorating rapidly, that government departments were closing daily and normal activities coming to a standstill and that the intensity of fighting was increasing steadily. By a telegram addressed to the President of the Security Council dated May 1, 1948 (S/730), the Jewish Agency for Palestine drew the attention of the Security Council to reports of the invasion of Palestine by regular forces of Syria and Lebanon in the north and by Egyptian forces in the south. It was also reliably informed, the Agency stated, that a strong column of Iraqi troops was en route towards Palestine.

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, in a cablegram dated May 15 (S/745), set forth at length the reasons which had prompted the Arab States to intervene in Palestine and expressed confidence that their action would receive the support of the United Nations.​

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.

No it wasn't. You are just pimping Israeli propaganda again.

(COMMENT)

Relative to your challenge, I am fully aware, as I am sure that most of the members know, there are two key perspective from the Arab Palestinians side that should be mention. And it is as valid today, as it was 70 years ago:

• Arab-Israeli War

Although Israel's independence on May 14, 1948, triggered the first full-scale war, armed conflicts between Jews and Arabs had been frequent since Great Britain received the League of Nations mandate for
Palestine in 1920. From 1945 to 1948 Zionists waged guerrilla war against British troops and against Palestinian Arabs supported by the Arab League, and they had made substantial gains by 1948. The 1948–49 War reflected the opposition of the Arab states to the formation of the Jewish state of Israel in what they considered to be Arab territory.

As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel. The Egyptians gained some territory in the south and the Jordanians took Jerusalem's Old City, but the other Arab forces were soon halted. In June the United Nations succeeded in establishing a four-week truce. This was followed in July by significant Israeli advances before another truce. Fighting erupted again in August and continued sporadically until the end of 1948. An Israeli advance in Jan., 1949, isolated Egyptian forces and led to a cease-fire (Jan. 7, 1949).

Protracted peace talks resulted in armistice agreements between Israel and Egypt, Syria, and Jordan by July, but no formal peace. In addition, about 400,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled from Israel and were settled in refugee camps near Israel's border; their status became a volatile factor in Arab-Israeli relations.

NOTE: I cut-n-pasted directly from "infoplease" because it had thumbnail Arab-Palestinian view point, less the political rhetoric.
​

• The Secretary-General of the Arab League, in a cablegram dated May 15 (S/745), set forth at length the reasons which had prompted the Arab States to intervene in Palestine and expressed confidence that their action would receive the support of the United Nations.

By a telegram of May 15 (S/743) the Government of Egypt informed the Security Council that Egyptian armed forces had started to enter Palestine "to establish security and order in place of chaos and disorder which prevailed and which rendered the country at the mercy of the Zionist terrorist gangs who persisted in attacking peaceful Arab inhabitants".

By a telegram dated May 16 (S/748) the King of Transjordan likewise informed the United Nations that Transjordanian forces had been "compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres".
​

The reality of this observation is, no matter what the answer might be is that it is better to contain an infectious element of the Arab Culture, then to allow it to escape because a few blind humanitarians want to see this very dangerous subculture unrestrained.

By releasing the Hostile Arab Palestinian and withdrawing back to the current security barriers, this would endanger (not only) the various factions in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, but also Jordan and Egypt. Syria is already burning; a shell of what it once was. But in terms of Jordan, it puts the Radical parent of the very same source of armed Palestinian Fedayeen groups of the (what the Kingdom calls "Palestinians guerrillas") The Conflict of 1970 which endangered the Royal Family and King on one-side of Jordan, and DAESH on the other frontier.

The Islamic Liberation Party (with the same basic goals as the DAE Caliphate) is still around, but is currently heavily committed to DAESH objectives. These organizations really never die completely; although they do go into remission every now and then.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly what challenge did you make that I did not answer?

Rocco made a claim and he should prove his point.
Of course he won't.

(COMMENT)

Be specific and clear.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

In 1948, the Arab armies intervened in an attempt to prevent the Zionist invaders (mostly from Europe) from ethnically cleansing the native Muslim and Christians from a large part of Palestine after the Zionists declared a Jewish state on land inhabited by native Muslim and Christians. Let's get things straight.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I take a step back. Not because you are correct; but, because that is all you challenged.

Source: Department of state: Milestones
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.
​

INTERVENTION OF THE ARAB STATES IN PALESTINE. Page #416 Chapter from UN Yearbook

On April 30 the Palestine Truce Commission informed the Security Council by cablegram (S/- 732) that the situation in Palestine was deteriorating rapidly, that government departments were closing daily and normal activities coming to a standstill and that the intensity of fighting was increasing steadily. By a telegram addressed to the President of the Security Council dated May 1, 1948 (S/730), the Jewish Agency for Palestine drew the attention of the Security Council to reports of the invasion of Palestine by regular forces of Syria and Lebanon in the north and by Egyptian forces in the south. It was also reliably informed, the Agency stated, that a strong column of Iraqi troops was en route towards Palestine.

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, in a cablegram dated May 15 (S/745), set forth at length the reasons which had prompted the Arab States to intervene in Palestine and expressed confidence that their action would receive the support of the United Nations.​

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.

No it wasn't. You are just pimping Israeli propaganda again.

(COMMENT)

Relative to your challenge, I am fully aware, as I am sure that most of the members know, there are two key perspective from the Arab Palestinians side that should be mention. And it is as valid today, as it was 70 years ago:

• Arab-Israeli War

Although Israel's independence on May 14, 1948, triggered the first full-scale war, armed conflicts between Jews and Arabs had been frequent since Great Britain received the League of Nations mandate for
Palestine in 1920. From 1945 to 1948 Zionists waged guerrilla war against British troops and against Palestinian Arabs supported by the Arab League, and they had made substantial gains by 1948. The 1948–49 War reflected the opposition of the Arab states to the formation of the Jewish state of Israel in what they considered to be Arab territory.

As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel. The Egyptians gained some territory in the south and the Jordanians took Jerusalem's Old City, but the other Arab forces were soon halted. In June the United Nations succeeded in establishing a four-week truce. This was followed in July by significant Israeli advances before another truce. Fighting erupted again in August and continued sporadically until the end of 1948. An Israeli advance in Jan., 1949, isolated Egyptian forces and led to a cease-fire (Jan. 7, 1949).

Protracted peace talks resulted in armistice agreements between Israel and Egypt, Syria, and Jordan by July, but no formal peace. In addition, about 400,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled from Israel and were settled in refugee camps near Israel's border; their status became a volatile factor in Arab-Israeli relations.

NOTE: I cut-n-pasted directly from "infoplease" because it had thumbnail Arab-Palestinian view point, less the political rhetoric.
​

• The Secretary-General of the Arab League, in a cablegram dated May 15 (S/745), set forth at length the reasons which had prompted the Arab States to intervene in Palestine and expressed confidence that their action would receive the support of the United Nations.

By a telegram of May 15 (S/743) the Government of Egypt informed the Security Council that Egyptian armed forces had started to enter Palestine "to establish security and order in place of chaos and disorder which prevailed and which rendered the country at the mercy of the Zionist terrorist gangs who persisted in attacking peaceful Arab inhabitants".

By a telegram dated May 16 (S/748) the King of Transjordan likewise informed the United Nations that Transjordanian forces had been "compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres".
​

The reality of this observation is, no matter what the answer might be is that it is better to contain an infectious element of the Arab Culture, then to allow it to escape because a few blind humanitarians want to see this very dangerous subculture unrestrained.

By releasing the Hostile Arab Palestinian and withdrawing back to the current security barriers, this would endanger (not only) the various factions in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, but also Jordan and Egypt. Syria is already burning; a shell of what it once was. But in terms of Jordan, it puts the Radical parent of the very same source of armed Palestinian Fedayeen groups of the (what the Kingdom calls "Palestinians guerrillas") The Conflict of 1970 which endangered the Royal Family and King on one-side of Jordan, and DAESH on the other frontier.

View attachment 94589​

The Islamic Liberation Party (with the same basic goals as the DAE Caliphate) is still around, but is currently heavily committed to DAESH objectives. These organizations really never die completely; although they do go into remission every now and then.

Most Respectfully,
R

You said:

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

That is not true. You are spewing Israeli lies.

the Jewish Agency for Palestine drew the attention of the Security Council to reports of the invasion of Palestine by regular forces of Syria and Lebanon in the north and by Egyptian forces in the south. It was also reliably informed, the Agency stated, that a strong column of Iraqi troops was en route towards Palestine.​

Israel was not attacked. The Arab armies fought Zionist/Israeli forces in Palestine because Palestine was under attack.

That Israel was fighting a defensive war is a big fat lie.

 

[Hossfly]

Who are the Palestinians?

Daoud Nassar

Who are the Palestinians? Invented people, of course.

Think-Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Daoud Nassar

Who are the Palestinians? Invented people, of course.

Think-Israel

 

[Hossfly]

Who are the Palestinians?

Daoud Nassar

Who are the Palestinians? Invented people, of course.

Think-Israel

Tinmore, you know as well as anyone else that the idea of Palestine as a country and a group of various Arabs from different countries who would call themselves "Palestinians" was created by the KGB in Moscow in 1964. Why don't you cease bullshitting yourself and everybody else and step into 2016?

.
The "peace process" is a charade. The revelations of the highest ranking Soviet bloc defector, Major General Ion Mihai Pacepa, show that the peace process is, and has from the outset, been nothing but a charade.

It all started with the creation of a fictitious "Palestinian People" who allegedly demand political self determination. This collective noun was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the "PLO". The term "Palestinian People" as a descriptive of Arabs in Palestine appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow. The Charter was affirmed by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, handpicked by the KGB.

Why in Moscow? The 1960s and 1970s were the years the Soviets were in the business of creating "liberation organizations": for Palestine and Bolivia in 1964, Columbia 1965, in the 70s "The Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia" that bombed US airline offices in Europe, and "The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine that bombed Israelis." But the PLO, was by far its most enduring success.

Think-Israel

 

[Shusha]

Who are the Palestinians?

Daoud Nassar

Who are the Palestinians? Invented people, of course.

Think-Israel

Interesting. So if you and your family have lived in "Palestine" for 100 years or so then you become "native from time immemorial". I guess that makes both the Nassar family and the Jews of Gush Etzion "native from time immemorial".

Does that mean they both get to stay?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I cannot argue with a Arab Palestinian that denies the reality of what happened.

You said:

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

That is not true. You are spewing Israeli lies.

the Jewish Agency for Palestine drew the attention of the Security Council to reports of the invasion of Palestine by regular forces of Syria and Lebanon in the north and by Egyptian forces in the south. It was also reliably informed, the Agency stated, that a strong column of Iraqi troops was en route towards Palestine.​

Israel was not attacked. The Arab armies fought Zionist/Israeli forces in Palestine because Palestine was under attack.

That Israel was fighting a defensive war is a big fat lie.

(COMMENT)

1) In this case, "Palestine" was the meaning originally assigned by the Palestine Order in Council.

2) On May 1, when it was still Mandate Territory, and the constituents of the Jewish Community were still citizens of the Palestine Government under the Mandate, Syria, Lebanon, and Egyptian forces were already crossing the frontier (invasion) into the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

Remember the Jewish were also citizens of the Government of Palestine, in the very same way and under the very same authority as the Arab Palestinian (setup by the Mandate and authorized by the Palestinian Citizenship order). I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders." Your claim that the Zionist were attacking Palestine is a neat trick, and a good peace of propaganda and spin. They can twist the reality any way they want, and shout their perspective as loud as they want. But the reality is unchanged. Arab League forces were infiltrating into Palestine (the Territory under Mandate) as early as 1 May. That makes the Arab League Armies the aggressor; no matter how you spin it.

3) The claim that the Arab League was trying to prevent this or that, is irrelevant. They crossed their respective frontiers for their own benefit and aggrandizement. No matter what political smoke screen the Arab League sets in place as their "just cause," a prerequisite jus ad bellum,
​

The serious implication is that any hostile engagement requires a "just cause" at the outset; but the continuation of hostilities lacks the justification and is therefore impermissible. Just cause thus determines the conditions for the termination of war. The legal ethic behind the continuation of hostilities, based on the Arab League claim that they wanted to prevent the Jewish from exacting some evil has past. It has long since dissipated with there "just cause" (as the King of Jordan put it: "compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres"). The 1949 "just cause" ("protect unarmed Arabs against massacres" ) has long since past and continuation of the conflict by (what is today) the Arab Palestinian is just another excuse to continue the war; absent any good faith effect to settle the dispute by peaceful means according to the Charter.

In 1949 Egypt got what it wanted, Jordan got what it wanted, and both Lebanon and Syria disingaged to prevent further losses. And the perpetuation of the conflict by the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians gradually brought the current political conditions, security enhancements and counter-terrorism expansions, and the adjustment of territorial lines, continues to be based on the every growing and continuation of Arab Palestinian hostilities.

You call it a "Big Fat lie." I like to think of it as reality, outside the childish mental health of the Arab Palestinian that prefers conflict to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I try to not get entangled by your gross and blanket accusations. I try to be specific, you just exaggerate or obfuscate your counter response: (1/10th v 9/10th). I generally say (as an example), the Palestinians fired over 4000 rockets at Israel in the between January and August. Each Launch was a violation. You claim I've maligned or

Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.
The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in
Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I, to Fourth Geneva Convention.​

Hamas admits to rocket fire from residential areas
Terror group says ‘mistakes’ occurred, accuses Israel of ‘disproportionate response’; IDF: ‘Hamas’s excuses are outrageous, misleading and contrary to the evidence’
BY HAMZA HENDAWI AND JOSEF FEDERMAN September 12, 2014

Evidence growing that Hamas used residential areas as cover for firing rockets at Israel
Published September 12, 2014
The Israeli army says Hamas fired almost 4,000 rockets at Israel, including 600 from close to schools, mosques and other civilian facilities, and scores of mortar shells. Israel carried out some 5,000 airstrikes, in addition to using powerful artillery and gunship fire.

I say that because his posts are half truths, or 1/10 truths. He constantly blabs about 1/10 of the crimes committed by the Palestinians but never mentions the 9/10 of the crimes committed by Israel.

And besides that Israel is the original aggressor. All of the Palestinian's crimes are responses to Israel's aggression.

(COMMENT)

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel. It was they that crossed the threshold of the frontiers establishing their internationally recognized boundaries.

On the 14th May, at six o'clock exactly, according to Washington time, the end of the British Mandate over Palestine was declared. At one minute past six, the establishment of the State of Israel was declared. At eleven minutes past six, the USA recognized the State of Israel. On 15 May 1948, Arab League Forces began their incursion.
​

At no time did the newly established Jewish State of Israel take an aggressive action over the threshold of the frontier. The original aggressors (multiple) were Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

No it wasn't. You are just pimping Israeli propaganda again.

Are you deny history again, and re-writting it to meet with your personal POV. The arab league invaded the mandate of palestine with the remit to wipe out the Jews and take the land for the waqf. A pity they lost so badly that it became a stain on their ability to wage war and fight with honour.


No propaganda at all but historical reality and truth

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I try to not get entangled by your gross and blanket accusations. I try to be specific, you just exaggerate or obfuscate your counter response: (1/10th v 9/10th). I generally say (as an example), the Palestinians fired over 4000 rockets at Israel in the between January and August. Each Launch was a violation. You claim I've maligned or

Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.
The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in
Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I, to Fourth Geneva Convention.​

Hamas admits to rocket fire from residential areas
Terror group says ‘mistakes’ occurred, accuses Israel of ‘disproportionate response’; IDF: ‘Hamas’s excuses are outrageous, misleading and contrary to the evidence’
BY HAMZA HENDAWI AND JOSEF FEDERMAN September 12, 2014

Evidence growing that Hamas used residential areas as cover for firing rockets at Israel
Published September 12, 2014
The Israeli army says Hamas fired almost 4,000 rockets at Israel, including 600 from close to schools, mosques and other civilian facilities, and scores of mortar shells. Israel carried out some 5,000 airstrikes, in addition to using powerful artillery and gunship fire.

I say that because his posts are half truths, or 1/10 truths. He constantly blabs about 1/10 of the crimes committed by the Palestinians but never mentions the 9/10 of the crimes committed by Israel.

And besides that Israel is the original aggressor. All of the Palestinian's crimes are responses to Israel's aggression.

(COMMENT)

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel. It was they that crossed the threshold of the frontiers establishing their internationally recognized boundaries.

On the 14th May, at six o'clock exactly, according to Washington time, the end of the British Mandate over Palestine was declared. At one minute past six, the establishment of the State of Israel was declared. At eleven minutes past six, the USA recognized the State of Israel. On 15 May 1948, Arab League Forces began their incursion.
​

At no time did the newly established Jewish State of Israel take an aggressive action over the threshold of the frontier. The original aggressors (multiple) were Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

No it wasn't. You are just pimping Israeli propaganda again.

A YouTube video from presstv can't be far behind.

Rocco made a claim and he should prove his point.

Of course he won't.

So when will you prove your many claims then, we have asked for links to verify your LIES and all you have is the same islamonazi moron that alters the wording of treaties to meet with his view

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I cannot argue with a Arab Palestinian that denies the reality of what happened.

You said:

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

That is not true. You are spewing Israeli lies.

the Jewish Agency for Palestine drew the attention of the Security Council to reports of the invasion of Palestine by regular forces of Syria and Lebanon in the north and by Egyptian forces in the south. It was also reliably informed, the Agency stated, that a strong column of Iraqi troops was en route towards Palestine.​

Israel was not attacked. The Arab armies fought Zionist/Israeli forces in Palestine because Palestine was under attack.

That Israel was fighting a defensive war is a big fat lie.

(COMMENT)

1) In this case, "Palestine" was the meaning originally assigned by the Palestine Order in Council.

2) On May 1, when it was still Mandate Territory, and the constituents of the Jewish Community were still citizens of the Palestine Government under the Mandate, Syria, Lebanon, and Egyptian forces were already crossing the frontier (invasion) into the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

Remember the Jewish were also citizens of the Government of Palestine, in the very same way and under the very same authority as the Arab Palestinian (setup by the Mandate and authorized by the Palestinian Citizenship order). I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders." Your claim that the Zionist were attacking Palestine is a neat trick, and a good peace of propaganda and spin. They can twist the reality any way they want, and shout their perspective as loud as they want. But the reality is unchanged. Arab League forces were infiltrating into Palestine (the Territory under Mandate) as early as 1 May. That makes the Arab League Armies the aggressor; no matter how you spin it.

3) The claim that the Arab League was trying to prevent this or that, is irrelevant. They crossed their respective frontiers for their own benefit and aggrandizement. No matter what political smoke screen the Arab League sets in place as their "just cause," a prerequisite jus ad bellum,
​

The serious implication is that any hostile engagement requires a "just cause" at the outset; but the continuation of hostilities lacks the justification and is therefore impermissible. Just cause thus determines the conditions for the termination of war. The legal ethic behind the continuation of hostilities, based on the Arab League claim that they wanted to prevent the Jewish from exacting some evil has past. It has long since dissipated with there "just cause" (as the King of Jordan put it: "compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres"). The 1949 "just cause" ("protect unarmed Arabs against massacres" ) has long since past and continuation of the conflict by (what is today) the Arab Palestinian is just another excuse to continue the war; absent any good faith effect to settle the dispute by peaceful means according to the Charter.

In 1949 Egypt got what it wanted, Jordan got what it wanted, and both Lebanon and Syria disingaged to prevent further losses. And the perpetuation of the conflict by the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians gradually brought the current political conditions, security enhancements and counter-terrorism expansions, and the adjustment of territorial lines, continues to be based on the every growing and continuation of Arab Palestinian hostilities.

You call it a "Big Fat lie." I like to think of it as reality, outside the childish mental health of the Arab Palestinian that prefers conflict to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

There are some things that you twist or leave out of your rant. But you do mention the basis of the conflict.

I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders."​

Let's see if this is true or false. The Mandate said that its purpose was to facilitate the immigration and acquisition of citizenship by Jews. Even though this policy was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun against their wishes it might not have been that bad. There was no inherent animosity between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine. Ultimately the Mandate had control of this process.

What is the difference between immigrants and foreign invaders?

An immigrant moves to a country to be a part of that country and live with the existing population.

The Zionists, however, imported as many Jews as they could find from around the world to live separate from the local population with the stated goal of taking over Palestine for an exclusive Jewish state.

Immigrants or foreign invaders?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I cannot argue with a Arab Palestinian that denies the reality of what happened.

You said:

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

That is not true. You are spewing Israeli lies.

the Jewish Agency for Palestine drew the attention of the Security Council to reports of the invasion of Palestine by regular forces of Syria and Lebanon in the north and by Egyptian forces in the south. It was also reliably informed, the Agency stated, that a strong column of Iraqi troops was en route towards Palestine.​

Israel was not attacked. The Arab armies fought Zionist/Israeli forces in Palestine because Palestine was under attack.

That Israel was fighting a defensive war is a big fat lie.

(COMMENT)

1) In this case, "Palestine" was the meaning originally assigned by the Palestine Order in Council.

2) On May 1, when it was still Mandate Territory, and the constituents of the Jewish Community were still citizens of the Palestine Government under the Mandate, Syria, Lebanon, and Egyptian forces were already crossing the frontier (invasion) into the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

Remember the Jewish were also citizens of the Government of Palestine, in the very same way and under the very same authority as the Arab Palestinian (setup by the Mandate and authorized by the Palestinian Citizenship order). I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders." Your claim that the Zionist were attacking Palestine is a neat trick, and a good peace of propaganda and spin. They can twist the reality any way they want, and shout their perspective as loud as they want. But the reality is unchanged. Arab League forces were infiltrating into Palestine (the Territory under Mandate) as early as 1 May. That makes the Arab League Armies the aggressor; no matter how you spin it.

3) The claim that the Arab League was trying to prevent this or that, is irrelevant. They crossed their respective frontiers for their own benefit and aggrandizement. No matter what political smoke screen the Arab League sets in place as their "just cause," a prerequisite jus ad bellum,
​

The serious implication is that any hostile engagement requires a "just cause" at the outset; but the continuation of hostilities lacks the justification and is therefore impermissible. Just cause thus determines the conditions for the termination of war. The legal ethic behind the continuation of hostilities, based on the Arab League claim that they wanted to prevent the Jewish from exacting some evil has past. It has long since dissipated with there "just cause" (as the King of Jordan put it: "compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres"). The 1949 "just cause" ("protect unarmed Arabs against massacres" ) has long since past and continuation of the conflict by (what is today) the Arab Palestinian is just another excuse to continue the war; absent any good faith effect to settle the dispute by peaceful means according to the Charter.

In 1949 Egypt got what it wanted, Jordan got what it wanted, and both Lebanon and Syria disingaged to prevent further losses. And the perpetuation of the conflict by the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians gradually brought the current political conditions, security enhancements and counter-terrorism expansions, and the adjustment of territorial lines, continues to be based on the every growing and continuation of Arab Palestinian hostilities.

You call it a "Big Fat lie." I like to think of it as reality, outside the childish mental health of the Arab Palestinian that prefers conflict to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

There are some things that you twist or leave out of your rant. But you do mention the basis of the conflict.

I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders."​

Let's see if this is true or false. The Mandate said that its purpose was to facilitate the immigration and acquisition of citizenship by Jews. Even though this policy was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun against their wishes it might not have been that bad. There was no inherent animosity between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine. Ultimately the Mandate had control of this process.

What is the difference between immigrants and foreign invaders?

An immigrant moves to a country to be a part of that country and live with the existing population.

The Zionists, however, imported as many Jews as they could find from around the world to live separate from the local population with the stated goal of taking over Palestine for an exclusive Jewish state.

Immigrants or foreign invaders?

"There was no inherent animosity between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine"

That's really not true. Islam is, by mere claims of it's inventor, morally and legally correct to discriminate against non-moslems. You should not believe that the kuffar does not know their koranology. There are many examples of revulsion for Jews in Islamist ideology. Islam's theology, such as it is, is inseparable from its political program: conversion by the sword, suppression-via-oppression of all competing faiths, and ultimately, subjugation of the entire world under Islamic sharia law is a core element of islamist ideology. With a current perspective, the Western nations that have solicited Moslem immigration have hoped that the pleasures and opportunities of life in more advanced nations would seduce Moslems into abandoning the nastier bits of their creed. It was a vain hope; Islam's political commands are as much "the will of muhammud" (swish), as any of its moral ones, and are therefore, integral to its ideals of fascism..

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I cannot argue with a Arab Palestinian that denies the reality of what happened.

You said:

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

That is not true. You are spewing Israeli lies.

the Jewish Agency for Palestine drew the attention of the Security Council to reports of the invasion of Palestine by regular forces of Syria and Lebanon in the north and by Egyptian forces in the south. It was also reliably informed, the Agency stated, that a strong column of Iraqi troops was en route towards Palestine.​

Israel was not attacked. The Arab armies fought Zionist/Israeli forces in Palestine because Palestine was under attack.

That Israel was fighting a defensive war is a big fat lie.

(COMMENT)

1) In this case, "Palestine" was the meaning originally assigned by the Palestine Order in Council.

2) On May 1, when it was still Mandate Territory, and the constituents of the Jewish Community were still citizens of the Palestine Government under the Mandate, Syria, Lebanon, and Egyptian forces were already crossing the frontier (invasion) into the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

Remember the Jewish were also citizens of the Government of Palestine, in the very same way and under the very same authority as the Arab Palestinian (setup by the Mandate and authorized by the Palestinian Citizenship order). I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders." Your claim that the Zionist were attacking Palestine is a neat trick, and a good peace of propaganda and spin. They can twist the reality any way they want, and shout their perspective as loud as they want. But the reality is unchanged. Arab League forces were infiltrating into Palestine (the Territory under Mandate) as early as 1 May. That makes the Arab League Armies the aggressor; no matter how you spin it.

3) The claim that the Arab League was trying to prevent this or that, is irrelevant. They crossed their respective frontiers for their own benefit and aggrandizement. No matter what political smoke screen the Arab League sets in place as their "just cause," a prerequisite jus ad bellum,
​

The serious implication is that any hostile engagement requires a "just cause" at the outset; but the continuation of hostilities lacks the justification and is therefore impermissible. Just cause thus determines the conditions for the termination of war. The legal ethic behind the continuation of hostilities, based on the Arab League claim that they wanted to prevent the Jewish from exacting some evil has past. It has long since dissipated with there "just cause" (as the King of Jordan put it: "compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres"). The 1949 "just cause" ("protect unarmed Arabs against massacres" ) has long since past and continuation of the conflict by (what is today) the Arab Palestinian is just another excuse to continue the war; absent any good faith effect to settle the dispute by peaceful means according to the Charter.

In 1949 Egypt got what it wanted, Jordan got what it wanted, and both Lebanon and Syria disingaged to prevent further losses. And the perpetuation of the conflict by the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians gradually brought the current political conditions, security enhancements and counter-terrorism expansions, and the adjustment of territorial lines, continues to be based on the every growing and continuation of Arab Palestinian hostilities.

You call it a "Big Fat lie." I like to think of it as reality, outside the childish mental health of the Arab Palestinian that prefers conflict to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

There are some things that you twist or leave out of your rant. But you do mention the basis of the conflict.

I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders."​

Let's see if this is true or false. The Mandate said that its purpose was to facilitate the immigration and acquisition of citizenship by Jews. Even though this policy was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun against their wishes it might not have been that bad. There was no inherent animosity between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine. Ultimately the Mandate had control of this process.

What is the difference between immigrants and foreign invaders?

An immigrant moves to a country to be a part of that country and live with the existing population.

The Zionists, however, imported as many Jews as they could find from around the world to live separate from the local population with the stated goal of taking over Palestine for an exclusive Jewish state.

Immigrants or foreign invaders?

They lost any rights they had once they sided with the Ottomans and the land was given away without a second's pause. They never owned the sovereignty of the land in all of the Ottomans reign, and the LoN deliberately left out the arab muslim filastins when they portioned up the former Ottoman empire. Right up until the 1960's the only palestinians were the Jews, and then the Russians told arafat he needed a name for his people to give them credibility so he stole palestinians, or more precisely filastins.
What a LYING POS you are as you know the arab muslims were enforcing the dhimmi laws and Pact of Umar on all the non muslims in the syrian sanjak. This included what is now called Jordan, Israel and palestine, and as your own links have shown was the reason the Israeli Defence Forces were formed to protect the Jewish inhabitants from attack by the arab muslim invaders.
Yes the arab muslims were the invaders as the evidence shows, and they arrived in their tens of thousands yearly to wait for the chance to go on a rampage killing Jews and stealing their lands. The arab muslims invaded and claimed that they were the real land owners. Again the historical evidence shows that the migrant Jews who were legal immigrants under international laws were prepared to live side by side with the existing inhabitants and teach them the new improved farming methods from Europe
So where are the Jewish settlements in gaza, Egypt, Saudi, Jordan and Lebanon if they are out to create a wholly Jewish palestine ? Why do you think that Jordan was formed with the blessing of the Jews to stop any one party gaining a wholly arab muslim or wholly Jewish nation.


So who in the eyes of the world and international law who are the invaders, and who are the invited migrants. I dont see many people rooting for the arab muslim terrorists, do you ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I cannot argue with a Arab Palestinian that denies the reality of what happened.

You said:

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

That is not true. You are spewing Israeli lies.

the Jewish Agency for Palestine drew the attention of the Security Council to reports of the invasion of Palestine by regular forces of Syria and Lebanon in the north and by Egyptian forces in the south. It was also reliably informed, the Agency stated, that a strong column of Iraqi troops was en route towards Palestine.​

Israel was not attacked. The Arab armies fought Zionist/Israeli forces in Palestine because Palestine was under attack.

That Israel was fighting a defensive war is a big fat lie.

(COMMENT)

1) In this case, "Palestine" was the meaning originally assigned by the Palestine Order in Council.

2) On May 1, when it was still Mandate Territory, and the constituents of the Jewish Community were still citizens of the Palestine Government under the Mandate, Syria, Lebanon, and Egyptian forces were already crossing the frontier (invasion) into the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

Remember the Jewish were also citizens of the Government of Palestine, in the very same way and under the very same authority as the Arab Palestinian (setup by the Mandate and authorized by the Palestinian Citizenship order). I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders." Your claim that the Zionist were attacking Palestine is a neat trick, and a good peace of propaganda and spin. They can twist the reality any way they want, and shout their perspective as loud as they want. But the reality is unchanged. Arab League forces were infiltrating into Palestine (the Territory under Mandate) as early as 1 May. That makes the Arab League Armies the aggressor; no matter how you spin it.

3) The claim that the Arab League was trying to prevent this or that, is irrelevant. They crossed their respective frontiers for their own benefit and aggrandizement. No matter what political smoke screen the Arab League sets in place as their "just cause," a prerequisite jus ad bellum,
​

The serious implication is that any hostile engagement requires a "just cause" at the outset; but the continuation of hostilities lacks the justification and is therefore impermissible. Just cause thus determines the conditions for the termination of war. The legal ethic behind the continuation of hostilities, based on the Arab League claim that they wanted to prevent the Jewish from exacting some evil has past. It has long since dissipated with there "just cause" (as the King of Jordan put it: "compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres"). The 1949 "just cause" ("protect unarmed Arabs against massacres" ) has long since past and continuation of the conflict by (what is today) the Arab Palestinian is just another excuse to continue the war; absent any good faith effect to settle the dispute by peaceful means according to the Charter.

In 1949 Egypt got what it wanted, Jordan got what it wanted, and both Lebanon and Syria disingaged to prevent further losses. And the perpetuation of the conflict by the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians gradually brought the current political conditions, security enhancements and counter-terrorism expansions, and the adjustment of territorial lines, continues to be based on the every growing and continuation of Arab Palestinian hostilities.

You call it a "Big Fat lie." I like to think of it as reality, outside the childish mental health of the Arab Palestinian that prefers conflict to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

There are some things that you twist or leave out of your rant. But you do mention the basis of the conflict.

I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders."​

Let's see if this is true or false. The Mandate said that its purpose was to facilitate the immigration and acquisition of citizenship by Jews. Even though this policy was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun against their wishes it might not have been that bad. There was no inherent animosity between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine. Ultimately the Mandate had control of this process.

What is the difference between immigrants and foreign invaders?

An immigrant moves to a country to be a part of that country and live with the existing population.

The Zionists, however, imported as many Jews as they could find from around the world to live separate from the local population with the stated goal of taking over Palestine for an exclusive Jewish state.

Immigrants or foreign invaders?

They lost any rights they had once they sided with the Ottomans and the land was given away without a second's pause. They never owned the sovereignty of the land in all of the Ottomans reign, and the LoN deliberately left out the arab muslim filastins when they portioned up the former Ottoman empire. Right up until the 1960's the only palestinians were the Jews, and then the Russians told arafat he needed a name for his people to give them credibility so he stole palestinians, or more precisely filastins.
What a LYING POS you are as you know the arab muslims were enforcing the dhimmi laws and Pact of Umar on all the non muslims in the syrian sanjak. This included what is now called Jordan, Israel and palestine, and as your own links have shown was the reason the Israeli Defence Forces were formed to protect the Jewish inhabitants from attack by the arab muslim invaders.
Yes the arab muslims were the invaders as the evidence shows, and they arrived in their tens of thousands yearly to wait for the chance to go on a rampage killing Jews and stealing their lands. The arab muslims invaded and claimed that they were the real land owners. Again the historical evidence shows that the migrant Jews who were legal immigrants under international laws were prepared to live side by side with the existing inhabitants and teach them the new improved farming methods from Europe
So where are the Jewish settlements in gaza, Egypt, Saudi, Jordan and Lebanon if they are out to create a wholly Jewish palestine ? Why do you think that Jordan was formed with the blessing of the Jews to stop any one party gaining a wholly arab muslim or wholly Jewish nation.


So who in the eyes of the world and international law who are the invaders, and who are the invited migrants. I dont see many people rooting for the arab muslim terrorists, do you ?

Yeah, whatever!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just Remember - There was no country of Palestine that was not an Artificial construct by the Allied Powers.

The Government of Palestine (The British Mandatory) was not an Arab sovereign State. It was a portion of the surrendered territory placed under Mandate.

If a people are invited by the Government to immigrate

Let's see if this is true or false. The Mandate said that its purpose was to facilitate the immigration and acquisition of citizenship by Jews. Even though this policy was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun against their wishes it might not have been that bad. There was no inherent animosity between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine. Ultimately the Mandate had control of this process.

What is the difference between immigrants and foreign invaders?

An immigrant moves to a country to be a part of that country and live with the existing population.

The Zionists, however, imported as many Jews as they could find from around the world to live separate from the local population with the stated goal of taking over Palestine for an exclusive Jewish state.

Immigrants or foreign invaders?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants did not use force to enter Palestine. It was there to re-establish the Jewish National Home (JNH), not further defined. It was the UN that invited the Jewish People to accept the partition and re-constitute the JNH.

No matter what you call it, the essential fact remains that the Jewish People were intended to be in the territory as determined as the territory for which the Mandate for Palestine applied; by the Allied Powers.

YES, you are absolutely and 100% correct. The imported as many Jews as they could find from around the world. The Zionist Organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency (later to be called the Jewish Agency). And yes, it was an advantage for the Jewish agency to become a regular public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine. It should be amplified that three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

Now it is important here notice this growing trend for the Arab Population to adopt this myopic view and NOT recognize that which is a tangible and functioning entity (The Jewish Agency). This is a recurring modus operandi which will cause them difficulty periodically through this adventure.

• The Jewish Agency link-up the Jewish People with the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home."

• The Jewish Agency did take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the
co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
​

Yes, the Jewish People did this. They do not deny it. And way should they? They followed the Mandate for Palestine and the ruling body behind the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that renounced all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I cannot argue with a Arab Palestinian that denies the reality of what happened.

You said:

Israel was attacked by an Arab League Army with components from each of the Arab States adjacent to Israel.​

That is not true. You are spewing Israeli lies.

the Jewish Agency for Palestine drew the attention of the Security Council to reports of the invasion of Palestine by regular forces of Syria and Lebanon in the north and by Egyptian forces in the south. It was also reliably informed, the Agency stated, that a strong column of Iraqi troops was en route towards Palestine.​

Israel was not attacked. The Arab armies fought Zionist/Israeli forces in Palestine because Palestine was under attack.

That Israel was fighting a defensive war is a big fat lie.

(COMMENT)

1) In this case, "Palestine" was the meaning originally assigned by the Palestine Order in Council.

2) On May 1, when it was still Mandate Territory, and the constituents of the Jewish Community were still citizens of the Palestine Government under the Mandate, Syria, Lebanon, and Egyptian forces were already crossing the frontier (invasion) into the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

Remember the Jewish were also citizens of the Government of Palestine, in the very same way and under the very same authority as the Arab Palestinian (setup by the Mandate and authorized by the Palestinian Citizenship order). I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders." Your claim that the Zionist were attacking Palestine is a neat trick, and a good peace of propaganda and spin. They can twist the reality any way they want, and shout their perspective as loud as they want. But the reality is unchanged. Arab League forces were infiltrating into Palestine (the Territory under Mandate) as early as 1 May. That makes the Arab League Armies the aggressor; no matter how you spin it.

3) The claim that the Arab League was trying to prevent this or that, is irrelevant. They crossed their respective frontiers for their own benefit and aggrandizement. No matter what political smoke screen the Arab League sets in place as their "just cause," a prerequisite jus ad bellum,
​

The serious implication is that any hostile engagement requires a "just cause" at the outset; but the continuation of hostilities lacks the justification and is therefore impermissible. Just cause thus determines the conditions for the termination of war. The legal ethic behind the continuation of hostilities, based on the Arab League claim that they wanted to prevent the Jewish from exacting some evil has past. It has long since dissipated with there "just cause" (as the King of Jordan put it: "compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres"). The 1949 "just cause" ("protect unarmed Arabs against massacres" ) has long since past and continuation of the conflict by (what is today) the Arab Palestinian is just another excuse to continue the war; absent any good faith effect to settle the dispute by peaceful means according to the Charter.

In 1949 Egypt got what it wanted, Jordan got what it wanted, and both Lebanon and Syria disingaged to prevent further losses. And the perpetuation of the conflict by the Arab League and the Arab Palestinians gradually brought the current political conditions, security enhancements and counter-terrorism expansions, and the adjustment of territorial lines, continues to be based on the every growing and continuation of Arab Palestinian hostilities.

You call it a "Big Fat lie." I like to think of it as reality, outside the childish mental health of the Arab Palestinian that prefers conflict to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

There are some things that you twist or leave out of your rant. But you do mention the basis of the conflict.

I notice that the pro-Palestinian like to call the Jewish citizens of Palestine "foreign invaders."​

Let's see if this is true or false. The Mandate said that its purpose was to facilitate the immigration and acquisition of citizenship by Jews. Even though this policy was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun against their wishes it might not have been that bad. There was no inherent animosity between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine. Ultimately the Mandate had control of this process.

What is the difference between immigrants and foreign invaders?

An immigrant moves to a country to be a part of that country and live with the existing population.

The Zionists, however, imported as many Jews as they could find from around the world to live separate from the local population with the stated goal of taking over Palestine for an exclusive Jewish state.

Immigrants or foreign invaders?

They lost any rights they had once they sided with the Ottomans and the land was given away without a second's pause. They never owned the sovereignty of the land in all of the Ottomans reign, and the LoN deliberately left out the arab muslim filastins when they portioned up the former Ottoman empire. Right up until the 1960's the only palestinians were the Jews, and then the Russians told arafat he needed a name for his people to give them credibility so he stole palestinians, or more precisely filastins.
What a LYING POS you are as you know the arab muslims were enforcing the dhimmi laws and Pact of Umar on all the non muslims in the syrian sanjak. This included what is now called Jordan, Israel and palestine, and as your own links have shown was the reason the Israeli Defence Forces were formed to protect the Jewish inhabitants from attack by the arab muslim invaders.
Yes the arab muslims were the invaders as the evidence shows, and they arrived in their tens of thousands yearly to wait for the chance to go on a rampage killing Jews and stealing their lands. The arab muslims invaded and claimed that they were the real land owners. Again the historical evidence shows that the migrant Jews who were legal immigrants under international laws were prepared to live side by side with the existing inhabitants and teach them the new improved farming methods from Europe
So where are the Jewish settlements in gaza, Egypt, Saudi, Jordan and Lebanon if they are out to create a wholly Jewish palestine ? Why do you think that Jordan was formed with the blessing of the Jews to stop any one party gaining a wholly arab muslim or wholly Jewish nation.


So who in the eyes of the world and international law who are the invaders, and who are the invited migrants. I dont see many people rooting for the arab muslim terrorists, do you ?

Yeah, whatever!

No international law of 1917 to 1949. Learn about it and weep

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Just Remember - There was no country of Palestine that was not an Artificial construct by the Allied Powers.

The Government of Palestine (The British Mandatory) was not an Arab sovereign State. It was a portion of the surrendered territory placed under Mandate.

If a people are invited by the Government to immigrate

Let's see if this is true or false. The Mandate said that its purpose was to facilitate the immigration and acquisition of citizenship by Jews. Even though this policy was imposed on the Palestinians at the point of a gun against their wishes it might not have been that bad. There was no inherent animosity between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine. Ultimately the Mandate had control of this process.

What is the difference between immigrants and foreign invaders?

An immigrant moves to a country to be a part of that country and live with the existing population.

The Zionists, however, imported as many Jews as they could find from around the world to live separate from the local population with the stated goal of taking over Palestine for an exclusive Jewish state.

Immigrants or foreign invaders?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigrants did not use force to enter Palestine. It was there to re-establish the Jewish National Home (JNH), not further defined. It was the UN that invited the Jewish People to accept the partition and re-constitute the JNH.

No matter what you call it, the essential fact remains that the Jewish People were intended to be in the territory as determined as the territory for which the Mandate for Palestine applied; by the Allied Powers.

YES, you are absolutely and 100% correct. The imported as many Jews as they could find from around the world. The Zionist Organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency (later to be called the Jewish Agency). And yes, it was an advantage for the Jewish agency to become a regular public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine. It should be amplified that three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

Now it is important here notice this growing trend for the Arab Population to adopt this myopic view and NOT recognize that which is a tangible and functioning entity (The Jewish Agency). This is a recurring modus operandi which will cause them difficulty periodically through this adventure.

• The Jewish Agency link-up the Jewish People with the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home."

• The Jewish Agency did take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the
co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
​

Yes, the Jewish People did this. They do not deny it. And way should they? They followed the Mandate for Palestine and the ruling body behind the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that renounced all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

Most Respectfully,
R

Just Remember - There was no country of Palestine that was not an Artificial construct by the Allied Powers.​

The same for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. Do you have a point?

The Jewish immigrants did not use force to enter Palestine.​

That is a lie. When the occupation of Transjordan changed to the Mandate, Britain withdrew its forces leaving a handful of advisors behind.

When the occupation of Palestine changed to the Mandate, Britain maintained a military force. They knew they were going to pull some shit and needed to keep their guns to pull it off.