Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[thetor]

You seem a S

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Remember that Turkey renounced all rights and title to the territories → with the future of these territories being settled → or to be settled → by the parties concerned.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement. At the time of the Treaty of Lausanne, there were no borders to and political territorial entity called "Palestine."

The difference is that Turkey did not cede territory to other existing states. It ceded territory to new states by treaty. States that never existed. Those new states had territory defined by international borders and those people became citizens of their respective states.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

(COMMENT)

Neither of these are enforceable Resolutions; and neither are laws.

More importantly is that the rights of one cannot interfere with the right of another.

Most Respectfully,
R

m

 

[rylah]

]I am Superior to you....and it is I that ask the questions

You just summed up the WHOLE of the Arab non - argument.
This is the Palestinians.

btw - You never answer my questions, You just dodge them with childish slogans.
Are You capable of holding a straight line without resorting to racist rants?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Neither of these are enforceable Resolutions; and neither are laws.

Come on, Rocco, now you are getting deep into Israeli bullshit territory. UN General Assembly resolutions are non binding but the international laws they reference are binding.

You are just trying to smokescreen the issue.

 

[P F Tinmore]

More importantly is that the rights of one cannot interfere with the right of another.

I will remember you said that.

 

[Coyote]

I never really thought about

So you are saying that people follow the sovereignty but the sovereignty vanished? The Mandate was an administration. It had no sovereignty. The sovereignty stayed with the people

People have no sovereignty. States have sovereignty. In the absence of a State, such as the Mandate period, the people are administered by another sovereign. But they have no sovereignty of their own until they develop it and meet the four criteria of a State (a people, a territory, a government and capacity to interact with other States). The Arab Palestinians, as separate from the Jewish Palestinians, have not yet met this criteria. They are getting there, though. Slow as it is.

People may have a right to self-determination in international law, but the process of turning that right into a sovereignty is not clear or complete (hence all the conflicts in the world over this process).

But your assumption that sovereignty passed immediately from the Ottoman Empire to "Palestine" has no basis in law or reality.

I never really thought about the distinction between sovereignty and self determination before, but that makes sense. Sovereignty comes from the state and ends when the state ends.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I never really thought about

So you are saying that people follow the sovereignty but the sovereignty vanished? The Mandate was an administration. It had no sovereignty. The sovereignty stayed with the people

People have no sovereignty. States have sovereignty. In the absence of a State, such as the Mandate period, the people are administered by another sovereign. But they have no sovereignty of their own until they develop it and meet the four criteria of a State (a people, a territory, a government and capacity to interact with other States). The Arab Palestinians, as separate from the Jewish Palestinians, have not yet met this criteria. They are getting there, though. Slow as it is.

People may have a right to self-determination in international law, but the process of turning that right into a sovereignty is not clear or complete (hence all the conflicts in the world over this process).

But your assumption that sovereignty passed immediately from the Ottoman Empire to "Palestine" has no basis in law or reality.

I never really thought about the distinction between sovereignty and self determination before, but that makes sense. Sovereignty comes from the state and ends when the state ends.

The people have the right to sovereignty. Governments and states are merely extensions of the People's sovereignty.

Who has the authority to end a state?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coffee in Palestine Nabi Saleh Through the lens

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Thank you for reminding me to call out all the hate, and not just one side's.

Here's the compelling argument which I think can be found here. Part of self-determination is the right to self-identification. Many Arab Palestinians identify strongly with both Jordanians and Syrians, and claim that all three are the same people. In fact, many argue that the current problems of those peoples are a direct result of the artificial separation of what really is ONE people.

This opens up the potential for a number of different solutions to the Arab Palestinians plight. We are not just restricted to a tiny piece of land adjoining Israel if we think in this way. There are other options. And it might provide all sorts of benefits to Arabs in all three/four places.

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land........and Joe The Palestinians are not the same as other Arabs as they are a Semitic People like some Jews are........But not all Jews of course(the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally)The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????obviously that changed after 1948...due to Terrorism,Murder and mayhem by the Jews 1948 onwards.../TOR

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

 

[rylah]

Here's an example of how even the Palestinian citizens of the west can be confused by mainstream media.
She barely lived in Palestine, most of her life was in the west, and she's out of touch of the facts on the ground. Especially about the deep rooted tribalism in the Arab society, in Palestine and elsewhere.

However, she said : "The Arab spring is the voice of the 1st Intifada".
And I'm not sure if she really understood the "Arab social justice" propaganda through the glasses of Western values. But she was correct, in a sense, because the results were the same.

Tribes and Tribalism in the Arab Spring

Q. Who remembers the outcomes of the Arab spring movement, after the Youth's outrage calmed, and they had ZERO REAL SOLUTIONS to propose? What happened?
Muslim Brotherhood filled the vacuum. With a detailed plan.
And the Arab Spring movement begged the military to take control from the Islamists.

Her main mistake- in forgetting that Intifada's were inspired and backed up by the Palestinian govt., while the Arab Spring was mainly sold by Al-Jazeera and instigators in the social media.
But the result was the same - Palestinian Arabs chose tribalism over central government.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote

Thank you for reminding me to call out all the hate, and not just one side's.

Here's the compelling argument which I think can be found here. Part of self-determination is the right to self-identification. Many Arab Palestinians identify strongly with both Jordanians and Syrians, and claim that all three are the same people. In fact, many argue that the current problems of those peoples are a direct result of the artificial separation of what really is ONE people.

This opens up the potential for a number of different solutions to the Arab Palestinians plight. We are not just restricted to a tiny piece of land adjoining Israel if we think in this way. There are other options. And it might provide all sorts of benefits to Arabs in all three/four places.

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land........and Joe The Palestinians are not the same as other Arabs as they are a Semitic People like some Jews are........But not all Jews of course(the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally)The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????obviously that changed after 1948...due to Terrorism,Murder and mayhem by the Jews 1948 onwards.../TOR

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

 

[rylah]

Coyote

Thank you for reminding me to call out all the hate, and not just one side's.

Here's the compelling argument which I think can be found here. Part of self-determination is the right to self-identification. Many Arab Palestinians identify strongly with both Jordanians and Syrians, and claim that all three are the same people. In fact, many argue that the current problems of those peoples are a direct result of the artificial separation of what really is ONE people.

This opens up the potential for a number of different solutions to the Arab Palestinians plight. We are not just restricted to a tiny piece of land adjoining Israel if we think in this way. There are other options. And it might provide all sorts of benefits to Arabs in all three/four places.

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land........and Joe The Palestinians are not the same as other Arabs as they are a Semitic People like some Jews are........But not all Jews of course(the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally)The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????obviously that changed after 1948...due to Terrorism,Murder and mayhem by the Jews 1948 onwards.../TOR

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

 

[Coyote]

Apples and oranges.

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land........and Joe The Palestinians are not the same as other Arabs as they are a Semitic People like some Jews are........But not all Jews of course(the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally)The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????obviously that changed after 1948...due to Terrorism,Murder and mayhem by the Jews 1948 onwards.../TOR

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

The pogroms are one issue, this is another.

 

[Coyote]

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

 

[JoelT1]

Um, “palestinians” are Arabs. 22 Arab countries exist More than ample self-determination

Jews were originally called “palestinians” in the British Mandate It’s a bogus name

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

 

[JoelT1]

Multiple Arab militaries attacked the nascent state of Israel in 1947.

Now you know

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Yes, I and all other Jews have believed that the Arabs, call them what one wishes, who lived in the region of Palestine do have the right to self determination.

It has never been the Jews who have opposed a separate State for the Arabs, it has been the Arab Leaders.
Jews did not get to agree with losing 78% of their homeland, but they did not go around attacking the Hashemites to force them to give it up.

Saying the Jews have been aggressive towards Palestinians without any context is, to me, attempting to give the Arabs the right to attack Jews.

One cannot divorce the history of the conflict by cutting off 28 years of total aggression against the Jews by the Arabs, which is what so many do.

To them, the history of the region starts in 1948 and Israel is the aggressor for "daring" to declare Independence as a State.

Did the Jews accept the Peel report of partitioning the Mandate in 1937 between Jews and Arabs? Yes, they did.

Did the Jews accept the UN Partition of what was left of the Mandate
between Jews and Arabs? Yes, it did.

Could someone explain to me what is it that Arabs continue to accuse Jews of, unless one looks at the very first riot against Jews in 1920, to the wars against Israel, to the proposed partitions, and proposed Peace treaties, and tell me that the Arab Leaders are actually wanting to allow a Jewish sovereign State "anywhere" on the ancient Jewish Homeland, if they can really help it?

 

[rylah]

Apples and oranges.

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

The pogroms are one issue, this is another.

It's the same issue, the same chain of events.
Team Palestine always dodges the issue.
Jewish state and return, was not just a "European project", it was a call that from within the Jewish community in Palestine.The pogroms against Jews in Syria-Palestine were the same as the pogroms in Europe, prior to Zionism.

Zionism was a natural answer, not the cause - to European aggression, as much as Arab aggression.

Q. You can understand who was the aggressor that lead to Kurdish independence movement, but not the the movement for the Jews in Palestine?

 

[JoelT1]

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Yes, I and all other Jews have believed that the Arabs, call them what one wishes, who lived in the region of Palestine do have the right to self determination.

It has never been the Jews who have opposed a separate State for the Arabs, it has been the Arab Leaders.
Jews did not get to agree with losing 78% of their homeland, but they did not go around attacking the Hashemites to force them to give it up.

Saying the Jews have been aggressive towards Palestinians without any contest is, to me, attempting to give the Arabs the right to attack Jews.

One cannot divorce the history of the conflict by cutting off 28 years of total aggression against the Jews by the Arabs, which is what so many do.

To them, the history of the region starts in 1948 and Israel is the aggressor for "daring" to declare Independence as a State.

Did the Jews accept the Peel report of partitioning the Mandate in 1937 between Jews and Arabs? Yes, they did.

Did the Jews accept the UN Partition of what was left of the Mandate
between Jews and Arabs? Yes, it did.

Could someone explain to me what is it that Arabs continue to accuse Jews of, unless one looks at the very first riot against Jews in 1920, to the wars against Israel, to the proposed partitions, and proposed Peace treaties, and tell me that the Arab Leaders are actually wanting to allow a Jewish sovereign State "anywhere" on the ancient Jewish Homeland, if they can really help it?