Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I said that. And again you don't quite understand.

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. (Must be that old government service. You people think funny like that.)​

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Look it up.

(COMMENT)

And I don't think you read the links.

Did you read? "terra nullius - territory that may be acquired by a state's occupation of it."

Or did you read? "In international law, a territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty is terra nullius. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius can be acquired through occupation."
​

Now, there are several other legal sources I could cite, and have cited in the past. But I'll just simplifiy this the best I can.

But what I can say is that these issues are not isolated concepts. There are relationships between them. You have this idea that only a single source or concept is relevant.

Sovereignty is an extension of authority. "But if sovereignty is a matter of authority, it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority."

Sovereignty is:

• the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

•In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.
​

You never answered the previous questions (Post #2988), so I assume you are not aware of the answers or do not understand how they relate. "Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order." In the case of the Arab Palestinians, they cannot really be considered sovereign it they cannot exercise power and authority. And with the Possible exception of Area "A" --- and --- in a very limited respect, the Gaza Strip, the Arab Palestinians can talk all they want about "rights;" but in fact if they don't have control or authority, they simply do not have Sovereignty.

What is Sovereignty.

The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and Its administration ; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.

Law Dictionary: What is SOVEREIGNTY? definition of SOVEREIGNTY (Black's Law Dictionary)
​

In the case of the West Bank, the Sovereignty was handed over to the Israelis by default when the Jordanians severed all ties. It went terra nullius (Jordan abandon sovereignty).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are ignoring the different layers of sovereignty. The people are the sovereigns. Governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of governments and states are the extension of the sovereignty of the people.

Whenever you see the standard rights to self determination, independence and sovereignty, they are always the rights of the people. States and governments are never mentioned.

From your link:

"The freedom of the nation has its correlate in the sovereignty of the nation. Political sovereignty is the assertion of the self-determinate will of the organic people, and in this there is the manifestation of its freedom.

Law Dictionary: What is SOVEREIGNTY? definition of SOVEREIGNTY (Black's Law Dictionary)​

It is a false narrative when sovereignty is passed around from government to government like poker chips. The sovereignty in Palestine always remained in the hands of the Palestinians.

Yet, there is not a Palestinian people, a term made up in the late 60's, yes?

No, that is just Israeli bullshit.

 

[elektra]

No, that is just Israeli bullshit.

Prove it. Show us one example, like from 1894, give or take.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think I said that. And again you don't quite understand.

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. (Must be that old government service. You people think funny like that.)​

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Look it up.

(COMMENT)

And I don't think you read the links.

Did you read? "terra nullius - territory that may be acquired by a state's occupation of it."

Or did you read? "In international law, a territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty is terra nullius. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius can be acquired through occupation."
​

Now, there are several other legal sources I could cite, and have cited in the past. But I'll just simplifiy this the best I can.

But what I can say is that these issues are not isolated concepts. There are relationships between them. You have this idea that only a single source or concept is relevant.

Sovereignty is an extension of authority. "But if sovereignty is a matter of authority, it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority."

Sovereignty is:

• the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

•In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.
​

You never answered the previous questions (Post #2988), so I assume you are not aware of the answers or do not understand how they relate. "Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order." In the case of the Arab Palestinians, they cannot really be considered sovereign it they cannot exercise power and authority. And with the Possible exception of Area "A" --- and --- in a very limited respect, the Gaza Strip, the Arab Palestinians can talk all they want about "rights;" but in fact if they don't have control or authority, they simply do not have Sovereignty.

What is Sovereignty.

The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and Its administration ; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.

Law Dictionary: What is SOVEREIGNTY? definition of SOVEREIGNTY (Black's Law Dictionary)
​

In the case of the West Bank, the Sovereignty was handed over to the Israelis by default when the Jordanians severed all ties. It went terra nullius (Jordan abandon sovereignty).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are ignoring the different layers of sovereignty. The people are the sovereigns. Governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of governments and states are the extension of the sovereignty of the people.

Whenever you see the standard rights to self determination, independence and sovereignty, they are always the rights of the people. States and governments are never mentioned.

From your link:

"The freedom of the nation has its correlate in the sovereignty of the nation. Political sovereignty is the assertion of the self-determinate will of the organic people, and in this there is the manifestation of its freedom.

Law Dictionary: What is SOVEREIGNTY? definition of SOVEREIGNTY (Black's Law Dictionary)​

It is a false narrative when sovereignty is passed around from government to government like poker chips. The sovereignty in Palestine always remained in the hands of the Palestinians.

Yet, there is not a Palestinian people, a term made up in the late 60's, yes?

No, that is just Israeli bullshit.

Tinmore, you know that the KGB brought Arafat the Egyptian to Moscow in 1964 and they invented the name Palestinian. Dumb ass.

 

[rylah]

The Palestinians, Muslim and Christians were the native people that the European Jews found living in Palestine. They, the Christians and Muslims, are the native people of Palestine. Or, do you think there were no people in Palestine before the European Jews invaded?

Yes, and what about their origins? Today a Palestinian is anyone who lives in Gaza or WB (Judea) for 2 years...

We know that Jews, Levite's and Cohen's originated from Judea and Levi tribes, also lived there throughout millenniums.

What tribes constitute the Palestinians who are not Jews?

No, the European Jews are not from Palestine. They are Europeans. You need to keep up. They were simply European invaders that dispossessed the native people of the area.

"The majority of Ashkenazi genetic heritage derives not from diasporic movement northward from the biblical homeland or from Near Eastern friends, but from within the indigenous peoples of Western and Central Europe.

To reach this conclusion, the researchers sequenced 74 mitochondrial genomes and analyzed more than 3,500 such genomes spanning Europe, the Caucasus, and the Near East, sweeping the entirety of Ashkenazi genealogical history. "

Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Europe, Not Middle East

Again when referring to actual scientific research we can see that Jews throughout diaspora have very distinct similarities- DNA and culture wise:

"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant."

The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people. - PubMed - NCBI

**Now that the obvious is out the way, may I kindly ask you again to explain specifically- what distinct culture do Palestinians have, and most importantly what are the tribes they're comprised of?

Thanks for the effort.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, that is just Israeli bullshit.

Prove it. Show us one example, like from 1894, give or take.

Why do you post here when you know so little?

The amended text of the Order of 24 July 1925 is worded as follows:

"Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens."​

Palestine Citizenship Order 1925 (articles/books/maps/cartoons/photographs/video or audio clips)

 

[Shusha]

So what? Does that mean that it was ok to remove and dispossess the Christians and Muslims who's ancestors had lived their for centuries to make room for European Jews.

So what? Does that mean that it was okay to remove and dispossess the Jewish people whose ancestors had lived there for centuries to make room for Romans and Arabs?

Why do you insist on only acknowledging Christian Romans and Arab Muslims?

 

[Shusha]

I would suggest you read the source documentation. Once you do, you will find that after the battle of Bar Kokhba in 134 AD the Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the province Palaestina.

And you will find that after the Arab aggressions of 1948, the Israeli government RE-named the sovereign territory Israel.

 

[Shusha]

I know it upsets you, but Palestine was inhabited by native Christians and Muslims before the Zionists began their invasion.

I know it upsets you, but Israel was inhabited by native Jewish people before either the Christians or the Muslims began their invasion. If you are going to play the we-were-here-first-game you should start with the people who were, you know, there first.

 

[Shusha]

Because there weren't any Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese invaders that transferred populations to Palestine.

Neither was there any Jewish invaders who transferred populations to (territory in question).

Certainly, Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese people bought property and moved there. Certainly, Jewish people also did. Why would an Arab migrating from (wherever) to the territory in question have rights there while a Jew migrating from (wherever) to the territory in question have NO rights?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure your are understanding this just yet. Please understand what you are saying here...

Indeed, but Jordan and Egypt no longer occupy any Palestinian territory. Israel does.​

(QUESTION)

These are critical questions.
​

Exactly which sovereignty took control of what territory --- from what other sovereignty (in 1967)?

In August of 1988, which sovereignty abandoned what territory, leaving it in Terra Nulles and in the effective control --- solely in the hands of what other sovereignty?
​

(DEFINITIONAL)

Terra Nullius is a territory over which any prior sovereign of Jordan has publicly and expressly relinquished its sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is Terra Nullius can be acquired through occupation.​

Public international law, and more particularly the rules governing title to territory, does not recognise any territorial rights for nomadic peoples, remaining constant in its approach that only a settled state can exercise territorial sovereignty. The criterion of statehood requiring that a state have a defined territory has not yet been read as possibly including the nomadic use of such territory, and nomadic peoples must fit into the structure of a state in which the majority is settled. As there are very few places in the world that have a predominately nomadic population that could potentially claim statehood and challenge the present understanding of territorial sovereignty, 54 nomadic peoples must look beyond the rules governing title to territory to find ways that would allow them to claim rights over their traditional transient territories. Such an avenue has been developed for nomadic peoples under the banner of indigenous peoples’ rights, under which international law has started to acknowledge that cultural ties to territory could be the source of rights over territories for indigenous peoples. (Gilbert, 2007)

54 See Castellino, ‘Territory and Identity in International Law: The Struggle for Self-Determination in the Western Sahara’, (1999) 28 Journal of International Studies 523.​

Disengagement from the West Bank

On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.​

(COMMENT)

The administrative severance from the1950, unanimously approved (Jordanian & Palestinian)
Unification of the Two Banks
divided by the Jordan River (an Annexation approved under self-determination), withdrew both the sovereignty and the protection of the West Bank. This knowingly and effectively left the West Bank to the Israelis. There was no effective Arab Palestinian government (provisional or otherwise) in either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The Egyptian Military Governorship rapidly withdrew rapidly in the face of an overwhelming superior force. (Remembering: The All Palestine Government (APG) having been dissolved in 1959 by the Egyptian Government. The APG, upon it disillusionment, had no further claim.)

Most Respectfully,
R​

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. (Must be that old government service. You people think funny like that.)

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Look it up.

They do when the occupied accept the occupiers as the soveriegns which is what happoned in gaza and the west bank. Now you are arguing against your own links because it suits you to show the arab muslims were always under foriegn control

 

[Phoenall]

Palestine, a section of Syria, not a state or a territory, a geographic part. Like the Mojave desert or the Rocky Mountains. In this case, Palestine referred to an area within Syria.

So what? Does that mean that it was ok to remove and dispossess the Christians and Muslims who's ancestors had lived their for centuries to make room for European Jews. Plus having been the Roman province of Palestine for several centuries, with important cities and a large population of Christians during Roman Byzantine rule, ir wasn't the Mojave desert or the Rocky mountains, you ignorant fool.

But they had not lived there for centuries had they as they were periodically removed by other factions to make way for their people. The only population unaffected was the Jews because they were not seen as a concern. You yourself have posted links explaining this and then deny that such things took place. As the world knows palestine was a term used by the Romans as an insult to the Jews, and this stuck and became the same thing in the Lingua Franca of the Christians and muslims after the demise of the Roman empire. All it was in reality was an undefined area on the map of a part of the M.E. that became a Roman province, just like the Russian Steppes or the South American Pamapas.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a very naive and over simplified concept.

It is a false narrative when sovereignty is passed around from government to government like poker chips. The sovereignty in Palestine always remained in the hands of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

"False Narrative?" Authority IS NOT projected by a narrative. Nowhere in the world is a national sovereignty maintained by a narrative. Sovereignty is protected by a "force" --- the ability to physically answer a challenge to incursion on authority. Sovereignty is about the rest of the territory recognizing the authority and the international recognition to the boundary to which that sovereignty extends.

Israel's international boundaries is recognized because ALL the adjacent nations realize that at the perimeter of Israeli is a force that maintains that sovereignty. Every Palestinian, no matter what they might think of Israel, understands that beyond the threshold of the frontier – the interior remains under full Israeli control, not because of a narrative, but because it is enforced. And every nationality, no matter what they might think of Israel, clearly understands that the enter and exit sovereign Israeli territory under Israeli Law. This is not dissimilar to nearly every other sovereignty in the world.

In your interpretation of:

"The freedom of the nation has its correlate in the sovereignty of the nation. Political sovereignty is the assertion of the self-determinate will of the organic people, and in this there is the manifestation of its freedom."
​

You must first understand what "assertion" means:

​

The part we are most interested in, is: "or exercising authority confidently and forcefully"

In 1948, the newly declared Israel HAD TO "exercising authority confidently and forcefully" in the defense of the territory, its new constituent population, and its sovereignty --- against the coalition of Arab League Forces attempting to overthrow the self-determination of the people of the Jewish National Home.

DO NOT think for a moment, that merely putting pen-to-paper and saying you have a "right" to this that or the other thing, is sufficient to establish and maintain possession of sovereign territory. While that might be true in an "idealized world" of the Arab Palestinians, it certainly IS NOT a reality; just ask them what territory they have sovereign control over -- supreme political authority.

The Arab Palestinians only pretend to be a nation, as a pretext to bilk "donor nations" of their contributions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

"By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats." They added: "Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

Yes, now you have it right, Jews fought Arabs, not Palestinians. The Arab's had no morale, and fled, simply because they had a fear, which, seeings how Arabs are very superstitious and prone to believing rumor, it is easy to see how they would easily flee back to the lands where they came from on hearing the Jews were defeating the Arabs. It is written in, "The Revolt", in detail.

The Jews were invaders from Europe, the Palestinians were the native people of Palestine. I don't see how you can be so confused. The Palestinian people, Christian and Muslim, were a people that attempted to stop the invasion through negotiation just after the British took over from the Ottomans, as confirmed in correspondence between the Palestinians and the British and the Zionists and the British. You are just parroting Zionist propaganda. The facts are in the UN archives. But, you have never done any research and have just accepted Zionist fiction. Read the source material and weep. The Christians and Muslims were the people of Palestine. The European Jews were the Zionists of the Zionist Organisation.

"PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

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

"Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."


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

Worthless spam as the arab's had already made it clear that they would not be taking part in any meettings to discuss the formation of anything other than an islamonazi nation. Much later the letter threatens violence and terrorism to which the LoN should have withdrawn all offers of nations and taken control as the Ottomans did. Leaving the arab muslims with nothing at all for their stupidity and behaviour. The arab leaders had already accepted the formation of a Jewish national home until the pan arab nationalist movement decided to renege on this treaty and do what they do best.

 

[Phoenall]

"By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats." They added: "Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

Yes, now you have it right, Jews fought Arabs, not Palestinians. The Arab's had no morale, and fled, simply because they had a fear, which, seeings how Arabs are very superstitious and prone to believing rumor, it is easy to see how they would easily flee back to the lands where they came from on hearing the Jews were defeating the Arabs. It is written in, "The Revolt", in detail.

The Jews were invaders from Europe, the Palestinians were the native people of Palestine. I don't see how you can be so confused. The Palestinian people, Christian and Muslim, were a people that attempted to stop the invasion through negotiation just after the British took over from the Ottomans, as confirmed in correspondence between the Palestinians and the British and the Zionists and the British. You are just parroting Zionist propaganda. The facts are in the UN archives. But, you have never done any research and have just accepted Zionist fiction. Read the source material and weep. The Christians and Muslims were the people of Palestine. The European Jews were the Zionists of the Zionist Organisation.

"PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

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

"Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."


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

Oh, my. You are on another of your cut and paste tirades, cutting and pasting the same articles you cut and paste across multiple threads on multiple occassions.

Let's just remind you again that your silly "Jew invasion" slogan is just another of your misconceptions and misrepresentations.

It's a bit silly to suggest that itinerant Arabs-Moslems from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon are a "native population" of some "country of Pal'istan". You have the same skewed version of history shared by another poster who is of the "I saw it on YouTube do it must be true", cabal.

Just historical fact and not your Zionist propaganda. I know it upsets you, but Palestine was inhabited by native Christians and Muslims before the Zionists began their invasion. There is even documentary film confirming this fact from the late 1800s.

And once again you alter history to suit your POV lifted from the hate sites. The Zionists were there long before any Christian or muslim was invented , even your god was a zionist before being killed by the Romans because of his beliefs. Like all neo nazi's you think Zionism started the day it was given a name, when the reality is the concept had been around for close on 2000 years

 

[Phoenall]

And for the coup de grace to your Zionist claim that there were no Christians and Muslims in Palestine when the Jew invasion began. I certainly enjoy posting source material. It puts morons like you in their place little Hollie.

From the UN archives.


"AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF

PALESTINE,

during the period
1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.


AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF
PALESTINE.

I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.


There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews."

Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)

It also says this

It is obvious to every passing traveller, and well-known to every European resident, that the country was before the War, and is now, undeveloped and under-populated. The methods of agriculture are, for the most part, primitive; the area of land now cultivated could yield a far greater product. There are in addition large cultivable areas that are left untilled. The summits and slopes of the hills are admirably suited to the growth of trees, but there are no forests. Miles of sand dunes that could be redeemed, are untouched, a danger, by their encroachment, to the neighbouring tillage. The Jordan and the Yarmuk offer an abundance of water-power; but it is unused. Some industries--fishing and the culture and manufacture of tobacco are examples--have been killed by Turkish laws; none have been encouraged; the markets of Palestine and of the neighbouring countries are supplied almost wholly from Europe. The seaborne commerce, such as it is, is loaded and discharged in the open roadsteads of Jaffa and Haifa: there are no harbours. The religious and historical associations that offer most powerful attractions to the whole of the Western, and to a large part of the Eastern world, have hitherto brought to Palestine but a fraction of the pilgrims and travellers, who, under better conditions, would flock to her sacred shrines and famous sites.


Giving the LIE to your claims that the arab muslims owned and worked the landsand created an abundance of food............


And your cut and paste should have as its opening The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. which would destroy your claim so you manipulate the cut and paste to suit


Then we see this putting the Jews at the top of the tree once more

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000. Every traveller in Palestine who visits them is impressed by the contrast between these pleasant villages, with the beautiful stretches of prosperous cultivation about them and the primitive conditions of life and work by which they are surrounded.

 

[Phoenall]

The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library

A Population Boom
As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.

Now, fiction from the Jewish Virtual Library trumps fact from official archives. You are making a fool of yourself.

No answer to the charges brought I see, just a deflection away from the reality that you are a proven LIAR once again

 

[Phoenall]

"By early 1948 British officials were reporting that "the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats." They added: "Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

Yes, now you have it right, Jews fought Arabs, not Palestinians. The Arab's had no morale, and fled, simply because they had a fear, which, seeings how Arabs are very superstitious and prone to believing rumor, it is easy to see how they would easily flee back to the lands where they came from on hearing the Jews were defeating the Arabs. It is written in, "The Revolt", in detail.

The Jews were invaders from Europe, the Palestinians were the native people of Palestine. I don't see how you can be so confused. The Palestinian people, Christian and Muslim, were a people that attempted to stop the invasion through negotiation just after the British took over from the Ottomans, as confirmed in correspondence between the Palestinians and the British and the Zionists and the British. You are just parroting Zionist propaganda. The facts are in the UN archives. But, you have never done any research and have just accepted Zionist fiction. Read the source material and weep. The Christians and Muslims were the people of Palestine. The European Jews were the Zionists of the Zionist Organisation.

"PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

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

"Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration...."


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

Jews were invaders from Europe, in 1922? You have confused yourself, that is a very ignorant statement indeed. How about us going back to October of 1918, why did the Arabs of Palestine conquer Damascus, ignoring Jerusalem? The fact of the matter is, no Arab in 1922 ever called himself a "Palestinian". Produce any document that states what you have claimed, twice now.

This is now the second time I am asking you to simply offer some sort of History that demonstrates that Arabs in Palestine called themselves Palestinians.

If you continue to ignore simple facts, then you are a liar and not someone that anyone can have a real discussion with.

The Palestinians conquered Damascus. LOL

The Palestinian Delegation's correspondence with the British Foreign Office wasn't proof enough you idiot?

NO nothing written by you is proof of anything but your constant need to LIE

 

[Phoenall]

No, Palestine was Palestine under Roman rule and was Christian for centuries. There were no Jews, it was illegal to be anything but Christian once Christianity became the Roman state religion.

You really should stop reading Jewish/Zionist propaganda and read some source historical material.

You should learn history, I would suggest Gibbons. The Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire. Romans called Judea, just that, Judea. As far as Palestine goes, they did not call the area, simply Palestine. Again, the source is Gibbons. Not Jews/Zionists, which you seem to think is one and the same, they are not. They are separate entities.

I would suggest you read the source documentation. Once you do, you will find that after the battle of Bar Kokhba in 134 AD the Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the province Palaestina.

You are a fucking moron, literally, first you state this;

No, Palestine was Palestine under Roman rule and was Christian for centuries. There were no Jews, it was illegal to be anything but Christian once Christianity became the Roman state religion.

Now you refer to the Battle of Bar, which was Jews againt the Romans, how is that possible when you made the claim
there were no Jews during Roman rule.

For the record, the Battle of Bar, was in the Roman providence of Judea, after which, you can make the claim that the Romans called this area;
Syria Palaestina

I stated that there were no Jews after Christianity was made the state religion of Rome. The Byzantines (a term adopted by later historians) were Romans. Try to keep up.

So who were the people that prayed at the western wall and entered the Synagogues under Roman rule

 

[Phoenall]

MONTELATICI

I'm a bit confused, you say Christians and Muslims in Palestine,but it still doesn't explain who the Palestinians were as a nation. Can you be more specific about them as a whole, what tribes did they come from, and what people did they constitute as a whole?
Also like any other people what distinct cultural traits did they have?

Thanks for the effort.

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine (when the European Zionists began migrating to the area) were the native people that lived in Palestine prior to the arrival of the European Zionists. Is that a difficult concept to understand?

So who were the Jews that had lived there for 4.500 years uninterupted then. Were they not also Zionists and palestinians and had as much right to the land as any of the other groups ?

THIS SEEMS TO BE A COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT CONCEPT FOR YOU TO TAKE IN AND ACCEPT AS REALITY. YOU HAVE READ THAT THE JEWS WERE WIPED OUT AND SO THAT IS THE END OF THE JEWS IN YOUR WARPED NAZI MIND

 

[montelatici]

As confirmed by declassified British intelligence reports, the Arab armies were the only hope to prevent the illegal taking of land by force (from the native Christians and Muslims) on the part of the invading European Jews. That they did not succeed in preventing the crime perpetrated by the murderous aggressive, marauding Jews, MaMJs is a shame, but nevertheless the Arab states are to be commended in attempting to prevent a war crime.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'...
The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land....
"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".....It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

Far from from the assertion of our resident clown, AKA Rocco, and as confirmed from source material consisting of declassified contemporaneous British intelligence reports, it was the invading Jews that were the hostile murderers and the Arabs that were trying to avoid conflict. The Christians and Muslims were, unfortunately, taken in by the British who had pledged to protect their rights. More violent opposition to the Jewish invasion early on in the 1920s would have saved the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.