Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Phoenall]

Of course Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.

But not the Jewish palestinian people or the Christian palestinian people, as this is what you have just stated

 

[Phoenall]

No, the article states clearly that the lands were farmed by the native Palestinians. Try to keep up. While I am grateful that you post links that debunk your positions, it's not necessary.

"These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers...."

read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority

So youi dont understand English now, previously as in before this time, as opposed to now at this moment in time. So who was the land leaded to at the time of the report ?

 

[Phoenall]

No, the article states clearly that the lands were farmed by the native Palestinians. Try to keep up. While I am grateful that you post links that debunk your positions, it's not necessary.

"These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers...."

read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority

Well actually, the desert lands didn't flourish until Israel brought modern farming techniques unknown to the arabs-moslems.

I'm actually grateful that you originally posted the link not knowing that the article thoroughly refuted your position.

Thanks for that.

Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority

More Zionist propaganda. Here are the facts, on film you idiot.

Watch Full Episodes Online of 1913: Seeds of Conflict on PBS | A Zionist Slogan

Cant see the signs round the actors necks saying Jew, Christian or terrorist ?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Posting from propaganda sites again. Try using historical fact rather than propaganda to make your point (as difficult as that will be), you will look a little less the fool, if that's possible.

 

[SAYIT]

Should Palestinian children be taught to thank the Israeli Jews for invading Palestine, dispossessing them and expelling them and/or oppressing them?

They need to be taught hate in order to serve the nefarious agenda of people like ... YOU. Perhaps teaching them the truth rather than the electronicintifada BS you spew here would be appropriate. Teaching them hate simply insures the next generation of cannon fodder for your "cause."

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHXPE2u4k2BHtuCT_rNsn46USWb6g

 

[Phoenall]

Posting from propaganda sites again. Try using historical fact rather than propaganda to make your point (as difficult as that will be), you will look a little less the fool, if that's possible.

Is your you tube channel historical fact then, or is it your islamocatholic propaganda

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."​

So the dumbfuck started a hundred year (and counting) war.

Good plan!

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."​

So the dumbfuck started a hundred year (and counting) war.

Good plan!

If you had bothered to study history, you would have discovered that it was the arabs (arab league nations), that, beginning in 1948, started wars aimed at the Jewish people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."​

So the dumbfuck started a hundred year (and counting) war.

Good plan!

If you had bothered to study history, you would have discovered that it was the arabs (arab league nations), that, beginning in 1948, started wars aimed at the Jewish people.

Pffft! Load of Israeli crap.

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."​

So the dumbfuck started a hundred year (and counting) war.

Good plan!

If you had bothered to study history, you would have discovered that it was the arabs (arab league nations), that, beginning in 1948, started wars aimed at the Jewish people.

Pffft! Load of Israeli crap.

I see. So you have your own version of history?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."​

So the dumbfuck started a hundred year (and counting) war.

Good plan!

NO that was the arab muslims that stuck to their religious commands and paid a heavy price. From 1914 every act of war has originated from an arab muslim action, and you try to paint them as lily white peaceful farmers. Who attacked the peaceful Jews in Jerusalem from 1919 and then instigated a civil war against them in 1929 leading to mass murders in Hebron ?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."​

So the dumbfuck started a hundred year (and counting) war.

Good plan!

If you had bothered to study history, you would have discovered that it was the arabs (arab league nations), that, beginning in 1948, started wars aimed at the Jewish people.

Pffft! Load of Israeli crap.

This is not supporting your claim, it is just showing you as a complete idiot who stamps his feet when he cant get his own way.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is that the British Mandatory, having been appointed and approved by the Allied Powers of the day, no intention withdrawing from the obligation to assist in the "Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds
for reconstituting their national home."

While it was envisioned (as an element of the process) that the Jewish People would develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants --- it was not envisioned that Arabs of Palestine would actively resist positive development and encourage violent and unlawful behavior. In the first decades of the 20th Century, the Allied Powers and the Mandatory saw regional economic growth as a means of expanding human choices should be the ultimate criteria for assessing development results. History has shown that the level of development achieved by the Jewish National Home (JNH) would have (and did) greatly benefited all the inhabitants. And that benefit would have extended and included the displaced Arab Palestinian --- had they not actively posed a threat to the sovereignty and independence of the JNH.

"Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."

So the dumbfuck started a hundred year (and counting) war.
Good plan!

(COMMENT)

Some pro-Palestinian viewers and supporters hold this view. Certainly, the British Mandatory was a catalyst --- increasing the growth of a Jewish-Arab Conflict without itself undergoing any permanent political change. However, the Arab Community, in general, maintained various corrosive policies, which are still visible today. And the Arab Community began to assume that discussions and conference decisions that were held between the Allied Powers and then introduced to the defeated Central Powers (in this case the Ottoman Empire) were for the benefit of the Arab Inhabitants; and somehow represented a binding commitment obligations to the various Arab Communities. THAT WOULD BE INCORRECT. The Treaties of Sevres, and later Lausanne, no matter its impact on the various Arab Communities, does not establish a binding obligation to the Arabs. Nor did the Covenant of the League of Nations form the basis of any obligation or promises to the various Arab Communities. The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic entered into a treaty and set of agreements with the Allied Powers; NOT any aspect of the Arab Communities. The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced in favor of the Allied Powers --- all rights and title to the territory under this discussion. And while the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) might argue that this or that agreement of binding device compels the Allied Powers to do this or that, from 1922 until the conclusion of WWII, the future of these territories settled or to be settled by the parties concerned were in the hands of the Allied Powers; NOT in the hands of the defeated inhabitants under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and the follow-on Civil Administration.

The question of who "the dumbfuck" was that "started a hundred year (and counting) war" is probably based on the agitator (Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini, a demobilized Ottoman Army Officer, turned cleric for unknown nefarious reasons) of the 1920 Nebi Musa (Old City of Jerusalem) riots, under British OETA control.

In March, the coup was carried out in Damascus and Faisal was installed as king, in Palestine there were riots - against the Jews

The spring of 1920 was chosen for action. In March, the coup was carried out in Damascus and Faisal was installed as king. In order to achieve a sizeable riot in Palestine, the country (in the words of the subsequent military Court of Enquiry) was "infested with Sherifian officers." who carried on a lurid agitation against the Jews. As the court noted euphemistically, the administration took no action against them.

On the Wednesday before Easter, Col. Waters-Taylor had a meeting in Jerusalem with Haj Amin el Husseini and told him "that he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world that the Arabs of Palestine would not tolerate Jewish domination in Palestine; that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine Administration but in Whitehall; and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General Bols and General Allenby would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home" (Meinertzhagen, pp. 81-82).
​

It might be easy to claim that the actions of one man ("the dumbfuck"), who you blame for starting the Century long war (Churchill). There is evidence that the violence was started by a small cliche of British Military Officers actively working against the Crown and Whitehall. They set the conditions for the 1920 Riots.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding, blah, blah, blah.​

You probably do not know that the West Bank is under siege as well as Gaza. It is just not as severe. Nobody can leave or enter the West Bank without Israeli approval including international academics who are barred from teaching in Palestinian universities. Nothing can be imported or exported without Israel approval. No aid or projects can enter Palestine without Israeli approval.

IOW, the Palestinian economy sucks because that is what Israel wants.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is that the British Mandatory, having been appointed and approved by the Allied Powers of the day, no intention withdrawing from the obligation to assist in the "Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds
for reconstituting their national home."

While it was envisioned (as an element of the process) that the Jewish People would develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants --- it was not envisioned that Arabs of Palestine would actively resist positive development and encourage violent and unlawful behavior. In the first decades of the 20th Century, the Allied Powers and the Mandatory saw regional economic growth as a means of expanding human choices should be the ultimate criteria for assessing development results. History has shown that the level of development achieved by the Jewish National Home (JNH) would have (and did) greatly benefited all the inhabitants. And that benefit would have extended and included the displaced Arab Palestinian --- had they not actively posed a threat to the sovereignty and independence of the JNH.

"Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."

So the dumbfuck started a hundred year (and counting) war.
Good plan!

(COMMENT)

Some pro-Palestinian viewers and supporters hold this view. Certainly, the British Mandatory was a catalyst --- increasing the growth of a Jewish-Arab Conflict without itself undergoing any permanent political change. However, the Arab Community, in general, maintained various corrosive policies, which are still visible today. And the Arab Community began to assume that discussions and conference decisions that were held between the Allied Powers and then introduced to the defeated Central Powers (in this case the Ottoman Empire) were for the benefit of the Arab Inhabitants; and somehow represented a binding commitment obligations to the various Arab Communities. THAT WOULD BE INCORRECT. The Treaties of Sevres, and later Lausanne, no matter its impact on the various Arab Communities, does not establish a binding obligation to the Arabs. Nor did the Covenant of the League of Nations form the basis of any obligation or promises to the various Arab Communities. The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic entered into a treaty and set of agreements with the Allied Powers; NOT any aspect of the Arab Communities. The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced in favor of the Allied Powers --- all rights and title to the territory under this discussion. And while the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) might argue that this or that agreement of binding device compels the Allied Powers to do this or that, from 1922 until the conclusion of WWII, the future of these territories settled or to be settled by the parties concerned were in the hands of the Allied Powers; NOT in the hands of the defeated inhabitants under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and the follow-on Civil Administration.

The question of who "the dumbfuck" was that "started a hundred year (and counting) war" is probably based on the agitator (Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini, a demobilized Ottoman Army Officer, turned cleric for unknown nefarious reasons) of the 1920 Nebi Musa (Old City of Jerusalem) riots, under British OETA control.

In March, the coup was carried out in Damascus and Faisal was installed as king, in Palestine there were riots - against the Jews

The spring of 1920 was chosen for action. In March, the coup was carried out in Damascus and Faisal was installed as king. In order to achieve a sizeable riot in Palestine, the country (in the words of the subsequent military Court of Enquiry) was "infested with Sherifian officers." who carried on a lurid agitation against the Jews. As the court noted euphemistically, the administration took no action against them.

On the Wednesday before Easter, Col. Waters-Taylor had a meeting in Jerusalem with Haj Amin el Husseini and told him "that he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world that the Arabs of Palestine would not tolerate Jewish domination in Palestine; that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine Administration but in Whitehall; and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General Bols and General Allenby would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home" (Meinertzhagen, pp. 81-82).
​

It might be easy to claim that the actions of one man ("the dumbfuck"), who you blame for starting the Century long war (Churchill). There is evidence that the violence was started by a small cliche of British Military Officers actively working against the Crown and Whitehall. They set the conditions for the 1920 Riots.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question of who "the dumbfuck" was that "started a hundred year (and counting) war" is probably based on, blah, blah, blah.​

No it was the British dumbfucks. There would be no war without them.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding, blah, blah, blah.​

You probably do not know that the West Bank is under siege as well as Gaza. It is just not as severe. Nobody can leave or enter the West Bank without Israeli approval including international academics who are barred from teaching in Palestinian universities. Nothing can be imported or exported without Israel approval. No aid or projects can enter Palestine without Israeli approval.

IOW, the Palestinian economy sucks because that is what Israel wants.

WRONG AGAIN as this is what the arab muslims want. They have it in their power to bring an end to the occupation and the blockade, but they refuse to take the steps needed as it will mean they would have to start working for a living. Under international laws Israel has to lift the blockade and lift the occupation if the arab muslims stop all forms of violence, terrorism and belligerence for the period of 1 year. Going on past evidence they would be lucky to last 1 week.


The palestinian economy is doing very well, that is the true palestinian economy of Israel and Jordan. It is the terrorist enclaves economy that sucks because they refuse to be human being and live in peace.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding, blah, blah, blah.​

You probably do not know that the West Bank is under siege as well as Gaza. It is just not as severe. Nobody can leave or enter the West Bank without Israeli approval including international academics who are barred from teaching in Palestinian universities. Nothing can be imported or exported without Israel approval. No aid or projects can enter Palestine without Israeli approval.

IOW, the Palestinian economy sucks because that is what Israel wants.

WRONG AGAIN as this is what the arab muslims want. They have it in their power to bring an end to the occupation and the blockade, but they refuse to take the steps needed as it will mean they would have to start working for a living. Under international laws Israel has to lift the blockade and lift the occupation if the arab muslims stop all forms of violence, terrorism and belligerence for the period of 1 year. Going on past evidence they would be lucky to last 1 week.


The palestinian economy is doing very well, that is the true palestinian economy of Israel and Jordan. It is the terrorist enclaves economy that sucks because they refuse to be human being and live in peace.

This is all part of Britain's war.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The point is that the British Mandatory, having been appointed and approved by the Allied Powers of the day, no intention withdrawing from the obligation to assist in the "Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds
for reconstituting their national home."

While it was envisioned (as an element of the process) that the Jewish People would develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants --- it was not envisioned that Arabs of Palestine would actively resist positive development and encourage violent and unlawful behavior. In the first decades of the 20th Century, the Allied Powers and the Mandatory saw regional economic growth as a means of expanding human choices should be the ultimate criteria for assessing development results. History has shown that the level of development achieved by the Jewish National Home (JNH) would have (and did) greatly benefited all the inhabitants. And that benefit would have extended and included the displaced Arab Palestinian --- had they not actively posed a threat to the sovereignty and independence of the JNH.

"Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people."

So the dumbfuck started a hundred year (and counting) war.
Good plan!

(COMMENT)

Some pro-Palestinian viewers and supporters hold this view. Certainly, the British Mandatory was a catalyst --- increasing the growth of a Jewish-Arab Conflict without itself undergoing any permanent political change. However, the Arab Community, in general, maintained various corrosive policies, which are still visible today. And the Arab Community began to assume that discussions and conference decisions that were held between the Allied Powers and then introduced to the defeated Central Powers (in this case the Ottoman Empire) were for the benefit of the Arab Inhabitants; and somehow represented a binding commitment obligations to the various Arab Communities. THAT WOULD BE INCORRECT. The Treaties of Sevres, and later Lausanne, no matter its impact on the various Arab Communities, does not establish a binding obligation to the Arabs. Nor did the Covenant of the League of Nations form the basis of any obligation or promises to the various Arab Communities. The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic entered into a treaty and set of agreements with the Allied Powers; NOT any aspect of the Arab Communities. The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced in favor of the Allied Powers --- all rights and title to the territory under this discussion. And while the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) might argue that this or that agreement of binding device compels the Allied Powers to do this or that, from 1922 until the conclusion of WWII, the future of these territories settled or to be settled by the parties concerned were in the hands of the Allied Powers; NOT in the hands of the defeated inhabitants under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and the follow-on Civil Administration.

The question of who "the dumbfuck" was that "started a hundred year (and counting) war" is probably based on the agitator (Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini, a demobilized Ottoman Army Officer, turned cleric for unknown nefarious reasons) of the 1920 Nebi Musa (Old City of Jerusalem) riots, under British OETA control.

In March, the coup was carried out in Damascus and Faisal was installed as king, in Palestine there were riots - against the Jews

The spring of 1920 was chosen for action. In March, the coup was carried out in Damascus and Faisal was installed as king. In order to achieve a sizeable riot in Palestine, the country (in the words of the subsequent military Court of Enquiry) was "infested with Sherifian officers." who carried on a lurid agitation against the Jews. As the court noted euphemistically, the administration took no action against them.

On the Wednesday before Easter, Col. Waters-Taylor had a meeting in Jerusalem with Haj Amin el Husseini and told him "that he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world that the Arabs of Palestine would not tolerate Jewish domination in Palestine; that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine Administration but in Whitehall; and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General Bols and General Allenby would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home" (Meinertzhagen, pp. 81-82).
​

It might be easy to claim that the actions of one man ("the dumbfuck"), who you blame for starting the Century long war (Churchill). There is evidence that the violence was started by a small cliche of British Military Officers actively working against the Crown and Whitehall. They set the conditions for the 1920 Riots.

Most Respectfully,
R

The question of who "the dumbfuck" was that "started a hundred year (and counting) war" is probably based on, blah, blah, blah.​

No it was the British dumbfucks. There would be no war without them.

Who instigated the war, and under what terms was it instigated. The last I looked it was the arab muslims led by the mufti who told his serfs to attack the Jews and take their land from them. Nothing to do with the British that is just the islamonazi excuse for them starting all the wars.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, well the passage you copied is quite interesting. These exchanges start months before the formal Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.

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 — ​

(COMMENT)

First: While the implementation of the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate, was a pre-framed policy, the policy was in keeping with the Agreement and Mandate. The British Government did not simply pull it out of the air.

Second: There simply was NO the joint control of the territory's affairs. The control of the territory was invested in His Majesty's Government, as outlined in the San Remo Agreement through the Council Mandate. This single accent of control began with the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA), and the follow-on Civil Administration that began in mid-1920.

Third: In terms of the ---- "Right and Experience" to best judges as to "what is good and bad" for the territory under the Civil Administration --- the following 95 years of Arab Palestinian leadership result would surely demonstrate otherwise.

Fourth: Immigration: In the response to the Letter you cited, the response by the Colonial Office included: "Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations" into which they have entered towards the Jewish people." This was a clear (most crystal clear) that the British Government reject or reverse policies associated with previous leaders or decisions made by the Allied Powers on the matter.

Finally: The response also stated that "Mr. Churchill takes this opportunity of explaining to you that no administrative action will be taken in Palestine, whether on the advice of the Zionist Organisation or otherwise, except through the constitutional channels ultimately prescribed by the Constitution in its final form. He is ready if it is considered necessary to insert a provision to this effect in the draft Order in Council."
​

In the time, close to a century now, the Arab Palestinians (excluding the citizens of Jordan or Israel) have yet to establish any unified law at the highest level; let alone any meet the Article 22 Criteria. Even today, dependeng of the Palestinian you talk to, and the attitude of their faction, will disagree on who is the legitimate leader of the Palestinian People.

I reccommend that you don't waste time looking backwards to find flaws; since the timeline cannot be changed; what is --- is --- what is. Instead, the Arab Palestinian should look to the future. IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding and monetary streams into the resources they have and change the face of Arab Palestine, making it something that evry regional player envies --- rather than the parasite that is is.

Given events in Arab states today, the question remains an open one. The Arab Spring also refuted the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central problem in the Arab world today. This issue is at present not at the heart of the Arab agenda today, but it may return there due to unexpected events or the decisions of Arab rulers. It should be noted that most liberals do not see the conflict as the cause which delayed the democratization of the Arab world, but rather an issue exploited by Arab rulers to distract their subjects from their poor condition.
Source: Why Arab Liberals Had No Chance
Tzvi Mazel, an orientalist and Israeli diplomat, served as Israel’s ambassador in Egypt, Romania, and Sweden. Today he serves as a research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Most Respectfully,
R

IF the Arab Palestinians are as good as they claim they are, then they should invest their funding, blah, blah, blah.​

You probably do not know that the West Bank is under siege as well as Gaza. It is just not as severe. Nobody can leave or enter the West Bank without Israeli approval including international academics who are barred from teaching in Palestinian universities. Nothing can be imported or exported without Israel approval. No aid or projects can enter Palestine without Israeli approval.

IOW, the Palestinian economy sucks because that is what Israel wants.

WRONG AGAIN as this is what the arab muslims want. They have it in their power to bring an end to the occupation and the blockade, but they refuse to take the steps needed as it will mean they would have to start working for a living. Under international laws Israel has to lift the blockade and lift the occupation if the arab muslims stop all forms of violence, terrorism and belligerence for the period of 1 year. Going on past evidence they would be lucky to last 1 week.


The palestinian economy is doing very well, that is the true palestinian economy of Israel and Jordan. It is the terrorist enclaves economy that sucks because they refuse to be human being and live in peace.

This is all part of Britain's war.

Nothing to do with Britain as we were not around when mo'mad issued the command from his god to " KILL THE JEWS "