Who Is Occupying Who's Land?

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

These are some big tears.

The Palestinians are doing what, since the late 15th century, people have always done when their homes and land are taken from them by settlers/invaders. The Native Americans resisted and fought for many decades until they were ethnically cleansed and moved into gulags called reservations where alcoholism and other ills have made most of them a passive population that accepts an existence financed by handouts from the descendants of the settlers/invaders. The indigenous people of Australia put up little or no resistance and have suffered the same fate as the Native Americans making it clear that the settler/invader will seek to achieve total domination regardless of the approach taken by the indigenous people.

(COMMENT)

The world has come a long way since the political, colonial, expansionist, and revolutionary thinking of the 16th and 17th century. History is what it is. And in cases of technically superior over the inferior cultures, the shadow of that thinking still exists. But that is not justification for a 21st culture attempting to apply failed strategies of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I'm sure you would prefer some other fate than that of the American Indian or the Aborigines of Australia.

Indigenous people that have successfully prevented complete domination have almost always utilized violent resistance to achieve national liberation unless overwhelming positive demographic factors have allowed them to regain control of their land through democratic means such as the cases of Ecuador and Bolivia. Often, however, negative demographics (from the indigenous people's point of view) through genocide or assimilation have resulted in the disappearance of the indigenous culture and people as in Chile, Argentina, Brazil etc.

(COMMENT)

That has nothing to do with the "Question of Palestine." The Arab Palestinian are not in danger of genocide. In fact their numbers are increasing, not decreasing. The tear jerking attempt to associate the plight of the Arab Palestinian with the fate of faded cultures of three and four centuries ago is merely a bit for sympathy. In stead of the Arab Palestinian having the fortitude to pick themselves up, shake themselves off --- dust-off the dirt and start building a new nation (something that they and their children can be proud of, --- they instead adopted the way of Jihad.

Ireland is an interesting case. Through continued resistance and violence, the indigenous people were able to regain most of their land and independence, notwithstanding strong opposition of what was, at the time, a leading world power. Without the violence and resistance (which the UK deemed terrorism) which made life uncomfortable for the settlers/invaders, there would have probably have been continued settlement by the English and Scots and it is doubtful there would be a Republic of Ireland today. Of course everyone knows about the South African and Rhodesian models. In both cases, a combination of violent resistance and international sanctions resulted in success for the indigenous people in regaining their land.

(COMMENT)

This is merely an attempt to justify a continuing level of Jihad. This has nothing to do with the Occupied Territories. The differences between the 6 Northern Counties of Ireland and the south are largely religious in nature. The case of South Africa was a case of racial segregation. Rhodesia was a compilation of issues. Needless to say, the Rhodesian model culminated into a naturally evolving two-state solution.

But again, this is merely another Arab Palestinian justification for a continued "violent resistance." In fact, nothing you've said thus far, even remotely sounds like and Arab Palestinian attempting to achieve a solution through peaceful means. It is all about why the Arab Palestinian should use violence; throwing a tantrum because the world isn't fair. It is again an extension of their past practice of choosing violence over peaceful means. And it is why --- that ultimately --- the Arab Palestinians will be a failed state. They haven't the knowledge, skills and abilities (let alone the cultural drive) to start a nation building process. (Put down the weapons, stop crying, and pick-up the shovel; start building.

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” ― Lao Tzu​

To single out the Palestinians for resisting the transfer of their land and homes to European settlers is not only unfair, it is a clear cut case of racism. Why should the Palestinians be asked to timidly accept their ethnic cleansing without resistance? Is there a difference between the Spaniards and Portuguese, authorized by the Pope to settle and invade the New World any different from the UN authorizing the European Jews to settle and invade Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Again with the whining over a decision that was made a half-century ago and fought over. Get over it. Right, wrong or otherwise, it was a decision made.

• Excerpt:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; [A/67/L.28 --- 26 November 2012]
​

Now it is time for the Arab Palestinian to build a "viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel" so that you can achieve something negotiated that will start on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. Establish some credibility and come together on a workable solution that is a benefit to both parties.

Most Respectfully,
R

Balderdash, attempting to justify Israeli neocolonialism as somehow different than, for example, than the Huguenots settling in South Africa to escape Catholic pogroms against them. There is no difference Bozo, your comments just demonstrate your racial hate for arabs. Funny thing is you are probably a good bit Arab given your southern Italian heritage. Self-hating Arab?

As your own link showed there was never any colonialism neo or old outside of your fantasy world. The arab muslims lost all control and ownership of the land in 1099 and never regained control or ownership since. At the end of WW1 the land was transferred from Ottoman control and ownership to LoN control and ownership. It was never transferred to the rag tag group of arab nuslims that term themselves "Palestinians"

 

[docmauser1]

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” ― Lao Tzu​

"The journey of a thousand lies begins with a single palistanian occupation." - DocMauser.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

These are some big tears.

The Palestinians are doing what, since the late 15th century, people have always done when their homes and land are taken from them by settlers/invaders. The Native Americans resisted and fought for many decades until they were ethnically cleansed and moved into gulags called reservations where alcoholism and other ills have made most of them a passive population that accepts an existence financed by handouts from the descendants of the settlers/invaders. The indigenous people of Australia put up little or no resistance and have suffered the same fate as the Native Americans making it clear that the settler/invader will seek to achieve total domination regardless of the approach taken by the indigenous people.

(COMMENT)

The world has come a long way since the political, colonial, expansionist, and revolutionary thinking of the 16th and 17th century. History is what it is. And in cases of technically superior over the inferior cultures, the shadow of that thinking still exists. But that is not justification for a 21st culture attempting to apply failed strategies of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I'm sure you would prefer some other fate than that of the American Indian or the Aborigines of Australia.

Indigenous people that have successfully prevented complete domination have almost always utilized violent resistance to achieve national liberation unless overwhelming positive demographic factors have allowed them to regain control of their land through democratic means such as the cases of Ecuador and Bolivia. Often, however, negative demographics (from the indigenous people's point of view) through genocide or assimilation have resulted in the disappearance of the indigenous culture and people as in Chile, Argentina, Brazil etc.

(COMMENT)

That has nothing to do with the "Question of Palestine." The Arab Palestinian are not in danger of genocide. In fact their numbers are increasing, not decreasing. The tear jerking attempt to associate the plight of the Arab Palestinian with the fate of faded cultures of three and four centuries ago is merely a bit for sympathy. In stead of the Arab Palestinian having the fortitude to pick themselves up, shake themselves off --- dust-off the dirt and start building a new nation (something that they and their children can be proud of, --- they instead adopted the way of Jihad.

Ireland is an interesting case. Through continued resistance and violence, the indigenous people were able to regain most of their land and independence, notwithstanding strong opposition of what was, at the time, a leading world power. Without the violence and resistance (which the UK deemed terrorism) which made life uncomfortable for the settlers/invaders, there would have probably have been continued settlement by the English and Scots and it is doubtful there would be a Republic of Ireland today. Of course everyone knows about the South African and Rhodesian models. In both cases, a combination of violent resistance and international sanctions resulted in success for the indigenous people in regaining their land.

(COMMENT)

This is merely an attempt to justify a continuing level of Jihad. This has nothing to do with the Occupied Territories. The differences between the 6 Northern Counties of Ireland and the south are largely religious in nature. The case of South Africa was a case of racial segregation. Rhodesia was a compilation of issues. Needless to say, the Rhodesian model culminated into a naturally evolving two-state solution.

But again, this is merely another Arab Palestinian justification for a continued "violent resistance." In fact, nothing you've said thus far, even remotely sounds like and Arab Palestinian attempting to achieve a solution through peaceful means. It is all about why the Arab Palestinian should use violence; throwing a tantrum because the world isn't fair. It is again an extension of their past practice of choosing violence over peaceful means. And it is why --- that ultimately --- the Arab Palestinians will be a failed state. They haven't the knowledge, skills and abilities (let alone the cultural drive) to start a nation building process. (Put down the weapons, stop crying, and pick-up the shovel; start building.

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” ― Lao Tzu​

To single out the Palestinians for resisting the transfer of their land and homes to European settlers is not only unfair, it is a clear cut case of racism. Why should the Palestinians be asked to timidly accept their ethnic cleansing without resistance? Is there a difference between the Spaniards and Portuguese, authorized by the Pope to settle and invade the New World any different from the UN authorizing the European Jews to settle and invade Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Again with the whining over a decision that was made a half-century ago and fought over. Get over it. Right, wrong or otherwise, it was a decision made.

• Excerpt:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; [A/67/L.28 --- 26 November 2012]
​

Now it is time for the Arab Palestinian to build a "viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel" so that you can achieve something negotiated that will start on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. Establish some credibility and come together on a workable solution that is a benefit to both parties.

Most Respectfully,
R

Balderdash, attempting to justify Israeli neocolonialism as somehow different than, for example, than the Huguenots settling in South Africa to escape Catholic pogroms against them. There is no difference Bozo, your comments just demonstrate your racial hate for arabs. Funny thing is you are probably a good bit Arab given your southern Italian heritage. Self-hating Arab?

As your own link showed there was never any colonialism neo or old outside of your fantasy world. The arab muslims lost all control and ownership of the land in 1099 and never regained control or ownership since. At the end of WW1 the land was transferred from Ottoman control and ownership to LoN control and ownership. It was never transferred to the rag tag group of arab nuslims that term themselves "Palestinians"

Your history is so far off it doesn't deserve a comment. As far as colonialism:

"The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically."

That's exactly what the European Jews did.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

These are some big tears.

The Palestinians are doing what, since the late 15th century, people have always done when their homes and land are taken from them by settlers/invaders. The Native Americans resisted and fought for many decades until they were ethnically cleansed and moved into gulags called reservations where alcoholism and other ills have made most of them a passive population that accepts an existence financed by handouts from the descendants of the settlers/invaders. The indigenous people of Australia put up little or no resistance and have suffered the same fate as the Native Americans making it clear that the settler/invader will seek to achieve total domination regardless of the approach taken by the indigenous people.

(COMMENT)

The world has come a long way since the political, colonial, expansionist, and revolutionary thinking of the 16th and 17th century. History is what it is. And in cases of technically superior over the inferior cultures, the shadow of that thinking still exists. But that is not justification for a 21st culture attempting to apply failed strategies of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I'm sure you would prefer some other fate than that of the American Indian or the Aborigines of Australia.

Indigenous people that have successfully prevented complete domination have almost always utilized violent resistance to achieve national liberation unless overwhelming positive demographic factors have allowed them to regain control of their land through democratic means such as the cases of Ecuador and Bolivia. Often, however, negative demographics (from the indigenous people's point of view) through genocide or assimilation have resulted in the disappearance of the indigenous culture and people as in Chile, Argentina, Brazil etc.

(COMMENT)

That has nothing to do with the "Question of Palestine." The Arab Palestinian are not in danger of genocide. In fact their numbers are increasing, not decreasing. The tear jerking attempt to associate the plight of the Arab Palestinian with the fate of faded cultures of three and four centuries ago is merely a bit for sympathy. In stead of the Arab Palestinian having the fortitude to pick themselves up, shake themselves off --- dust-off the dirt and start building a new nation (something that they and their children can be proud of, --- they instead adopted the way of Jihad.

Ireland is an interesting case. Through continued resistance and violence, the indigenous people were able to regain most of their land and independence, notwithstanding strong opposition of what was, at the time, a leading world power. Without the violence and resistance (which the UK deemed terrorism) which made life uncomfortable for the settlers/invaders, there would have probably have been continued settlement by the English and Scots and it is doubtful there would be a Republic of Ireland today. Of course everyone knows about the South African and Rhodesian models. In both cases, a combination of violent resistance and international sanctions resulted in success for the indigenous people in regaining their land.

(COMMENT)

This is merely an attempt to justify a continuing level of Jihad. This has nothing to do with the Occupied Territories. The differences between the 6 Northern Counties of Ireland and the south are largely religious in nature. The case of South Africa was a case of racial segregation. Rhodesia was a compilation of issues. Needless to say, the Rhodesian model culminated into a naturally evolving two-state solution.

But again, this is merely another Arab Palestinian justification for a continued "violent resistance." In fact, nothing you've said thus far, even remotely sounds like and Arab Palestinian attempting to achieve a solution through peaceful means. It is all about why the Arab Palestinian should use violence; throwing a tantrum because the world isn't fair. It is again an extension of their past practice of choosing violence over peaceful means. And it is why --- that ultimately --- the Arab Palestinians will be a failed state. They haven't the knowledge, skills and abilities (let alone the cultural drive) to start a nation building process. (Put down the weapons, stop crying, and pick-up the shovel; start building.

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” ― Lao Tzu​

To single out the Palestinians for resisting the transfer of their land and homes to European settlers is not only unfair, it is a clear cut case of racism. Why should the Palestinians be asked to timidly accept their ethnic cleansing without resistance? Is there a difference between the Spaniards and Portuguese, authorized by the Pope to settle and invade the New World any different from the UN authorizing the European Jews to settle and invade Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Again with the whining over a decision that was made a half-century ago and fought over. Get over it. Right, wrong or otherwise, it was a decision made.

• Excerpt:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; [A/67/L.28 --- 26 November 2012]
​

Now it is time for the Arab Palestinian to build a "viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel" so that you can achieve something negotiated that will start on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. Establish some credibility and come together on a workable solution that is a benefit to both parties.

Most Respectfully,
R

Balderdash, attempting to justify Israeli neocolonialism as somehow different than, for example, than the Huguenots settling in South Africa to escape Catholic pogroms against them. There is no difference Bozo, your comments just demonstrate your racial hate for arabs. Funny thing is you are probably a good bit Arab given your southern Italian heritage. Self-hating Arab?

As your own link showed there was never any colonialism neo or old outside of your fantasy world. The arab muslims lost all control and ownership of the land in 1099 and never regained control or ownership since. At the end of WW1 the land was transferred from Ottoman control and ownership to LoN control and ownership. It was never transferred to the rag tag group of arab nuslims that term themselves "Palestinians"

Your history is so far off it doesn't deserve a comment. As far as colonialism:

"The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically."

That's exactly what the European Jews did.

They were invited to migrate and settle by the lands LEGAL OWNERS, so they were not occupying the land with settlers they were populating the land given to them by its LEGAL OWNERS.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

These are some big tears.

The Palestinians are doing what, since the late 15th century, people have always done when their homes and land are taken from them by settlers/invaders. The Native Americans resisted and fought for many decades until they were ethnically cleansed and moved into gulags called reservations where alcoholism and other ills have made most of them a passive population that accepts an existence financed by handouts from the descendants of the settlers/invaders. The indigenous people of Australia put up little or no resistance and have suffered the same fate as the Native Americans making it clear that the settler/invader will seek to achieve total domination regardless of the approach taken by the indigenous people.

(COMMENT)

The world has come a long way since the political, colonial, expansionist, and revolutionary thinking of the 16th and 17th century. History is what it is. And in cases of technically superior over the inferior cultures, the shadow of that thinking still exists. But that is not justification for a 21st culture attempting to apply failed strategies of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I'm sure you would prefer some other fate than that of the American Indian or the Aborigines of Australia.

Indigenous people that have successfully prevented complete domination have almost always utilized violent resistance to achieve national liberation unless overwhelming positive demographic factors have allowed them to regain control of their land through democratic means such as the cases of Ecuador and Bolivia. Often, however, negative demographics (from the indigenous people's point of view) through genocide or assimilation have resulted in the disappearance of the indigenous culture and people as in Chile, Argentina, Brazil etc.

(COMMENT)

That has nothing to do with the "Question of Palestine." The Arab Palestinian are not in danger of genocide. In fact their numbers are increasing, not decreasing. The tear jerking attempt to associate the plight of the Arab Palestinian with the fate of faded cultures of three and four centuries ago is merely a bit for sympathy. In stead of the Arab Palestinian having the fortitude to pick themselves up, shake themselves off --- dust-off the dirt and start building a new nation (something that they and their children can be proud of, --- they instead adopted the way of Jihad.

Ireland is an interesting case. Through continued resistance and violence, the indigenous people were able to regain most of their land and independence, notwithstanding strong opposition of what was, at the time, a leading world power. Without the violence and resistance (which the UK deemed terrorism) which made life uncomfortable for the settlers/invaders, there would have probably have been continued settlement by the English and Scots and it is doubtful there would be a Republic of Ireland today. Of course everyone knows about the South African and Rhodesian models. In both cases, a combination of violent resistance and international sanctions resulted in success for the indigenous people in regaining their land.

(COMMENT)

This is merely an attempt to justify a continuing level of Jihad. This has nothing to do with the Occupied Territories. The differences between the 6 Northern Counties of Ireland and the south are largely religious in nature. The case of South Africa was a case of racial segregation. Rhodesia was a compilation of issues. Needless to say, the Rhodesian model culminated into a naturally evolving two-state solution.

But again, this is merely another Arab Palestinian justification for a continued "violent resistance." In fact, nothing you've said thus far, even remotely sounds like and Arab Palestinian attempting to achieve a solution through peaceful means. It is all about why the Arab Palestinian should use violence; throwing a tantrum because the world isn't fair. It is again an extension of their past practice of choosing violence over peaceful means. And it is why --- that ultimately --- the Arab Palestinians will be a failed state. They haven't the knowledge, skills and abilities (let alone the cultural drive) to start a nation building process. (Put down the weapons, stop crying, and pick-up the shovel; start building.

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” ― Lao Tzu​

To single out the Palestinians for resisting the transfer of their land and homes to European settlers is not only unfair, it is a clear cut case of racism. Why should the Palestinians be asked to timidly accept their ethnic cleansing without resistance? Is there a difference between the Spaniards and Portuguese, authorized by the Pope to settle and invade the New World any different from the UN authorizing the European Jews to settle and invade Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Again with the whining over a decision that was made a half-century ago and fought over. Get over it. Right, wrong or otherwise, it was a decision made.

• Excerpt:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; [A/67/L.28 --- 26 November 2012]
​

Now it is time for the Arab Palestinian to build a "viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel" so that you can achieve something negotiated that will start on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. Establish some credibility and come together on a workable solution that is a benefit to both parties.

Most Respectfully,
R

Balderdash, attempting to justify Israeli neocolonialism as somehow different than, for example, than the Huguenots settling in South Africa to escape Catholic pogroms against them. There is no difference Bozo, your comments just demonstrate your racial hate for arabs. Funny thing is you are probably a good bit Arab given your southern Italian heritage. Self-hating Arab?

As your own link showed there was never any colonialism neo or old outside of your fantasy world. The arab muslims lost all control and ownership of the land in 1099 and never regained control or ownership since. At the end of WW1 the land was transferred from Ottoman control and ownership to LoN control and ownership. It was never transferred to the rag tag group of arab nuslims that term themselves "Palestinians"

Your history is so far off it doesn't deserve a comment. As far as colonialism:

"The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically."

That's exactly what the European Jews did.

They were invited to migrate and settle by the lands LEGAL OWNERS, so they were not occupying the land with settlers they were populating the land given to them by its LEGAL OWNERS.

Not true.

Neither the LoN nor the mandate had possession of any land.

 

[MJB12741]

On & on we go arguing over who's land it is. The bottom line always comes out the same. Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any given period in time. As an examople, is the town of Vilna Russian, Polish or Lithuanian? Answer --- all three answers are correct depending on the time reference.

As for Israel, as long as the land is ruled by Israel, the land is Israel's. Palestinian squatters should not be allowed to remain in Israel. Deal with it

 

[Youch]

On & on we go arguing over who's land it is. The bottom line always comes out the same. Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any given period in time. As an examople, is the town of Vilna Russian, Polish or Lithuanian? Answer --- all three answers are correct depending on the time reference.

As for Israel, as long as the land is ruled by Israel, the land is Israel's. Palestinian squatters should not be allowed to remain in Israel. Deal with it

Some consider it an immigration issue. While narrowly true, it ignores the intolerant hatred behind the jihad and caliphate. "Squatters" is but a very small part of the larger issue.

Extermination is never a good thing, regardless of who holds the deed.

 

[MJB12741]

On & on we go arguing over who's land it is. The bottom line always comes out the same. Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any given period in time. As an examople, is the town of Vilna Russian, Polish or Lithuanian? Answer --- all three answers are correct depending on the time reference.

As for Israel, as long as the land is ruled by Israel, the land is Israel's. Palestinian squatters should not be allowed to remain in Israel. Deal with it

Let us consider all of the stolen Muslim lands of today. Golly gee, whatever happened to the indigenous Pesians? From the glory & grandeur of Persepolis under Zoroastrian rule to the slums of Shiraz under Muslim rule.

 

[Hossfly]

On & on we go arguing over who's land it is. The bottom line always comes out the same. Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any given period in time. As an examople, is the town of Vilna Russian, Polish or Lithuanian? Answer --- all three answers are correct depending on the time reference.

As for Israel, as long as the land is ruled by Israel, the land is Israel's. Palestinian squatters should not be allowed to remain in Israel. Deal with it

Some consider it an immigration issue. While narrowly true, it ignores the intolerant hatred behind the jihad and caliphate. "Squatters" is but a very small part of the larger issue.

Extermination is never a good thing, regardless of who holds the deed.

I don't think MJB suggested extermination.

 

[Youch]

On & on we go arguing over who's land it is. The bottom line always comes out the same. Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any given period in time. As an examople, is the town of Vilna Russian, Polish or Lithuanian? Answer --- all three answers are correct depending on the time reference.

As for Israel, as long as the land is ruled by Israel, the land is Israel's. Palestinian squatters should not be allowed to remain in Israel. Deal with it

Some consider it an immigration issue. While narrowly true, it ignores the intolerant hatred behind the jihad and caliphate. "Squatters" is but a very small part of the larger issue.

Extermination is never a good thing, regardless of who holds the deed.

I don't think MJB suggested extermination.

Didn't say he did. The President of Iran, the creed of Hezbollah and Hamas, and now ISIS, are all on record of saying so. My point was, this isn't just about squatters.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You still don't get it.

Not true.

Neither the LoN nor the mandate had possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman/Turkish Government relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers who maintained the effective control (Occupied the territory).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You still don't get it.

Not true.

Neither the LoN nor the mandate had possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman/Turkish Government relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers who maintained the effective control (Occupied the territory).

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, I have to inform you that Tinmore takes night rides on flying horses, traveling around Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

These are some big tears.

(COMMENT)

The world has come a long way since the political, colonial, expansionist, and revolutionary thinking of the 16th and 17th century. History is what it is. And in cases of technically superior over the inferior cultures, the shadow of that thinking still exists. But that is not justification for a 21st culture attempting to apply failed strategies of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I'm sure you would prefer some other fate than that of the American Indian or the Aborigines of Australia.

(COMMENT)

That has nothing to do with the "Question of Palestine." The Arab Palestinian are not in danger of genocide. In fact their numbers are increasing, not decreasing. The tear jerking attempt to associate the plight of the Arab Palestinian with the fate of faded cultures of three and four centuries ago is merely a bit for sympathy. In stead of the Arab Palestinian having the fortitude to pick themselves up, shake themselves off --- dust-off the dirt and start building a new nation (something that they and their children can be proud of, --- they instead adopted the way of Jihad.

(COMMENT)

This is merely an attempt to justify a continuing level of Jihad. This has nothing to do with the Occupied Territories. The differences between the 6 Northern Counties of Ireland and the south are largely religious in nature. The case of South Africa was a case of racial segregation. Rhodesia was a compilation of issues. Needless to say, the Rhodesian model culminated into a naturally evolving two-state solution.

But again, this is merely another Arab Palestinian justification for a continued "violent resistance." In fact, nothing you've said thus far, even remotely sounds like and Arab Palestinian attempting to achieve a solution through peaceful means. It is all about why the Arab Palestinian should use violence; throwing a tantrum because the world isn't fair. It is again an extension of their past practice of choosing violence over peaceful means. And it is why --- that ultimately --- the Arab Palestinians will be a failed state. They haven't the knowledge, skills and abilities (let alone the cultural drive) to start a nation building process. (Put down the weapons, stop crying, and pick-up the shovel; start building.

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” ― Lao Tzu​

(COMMENT)

Again with the whining over a decision that was made a half-century ago and fought over. Get over it. Right, wrong or otherwise, it was a decision made.

• Excerpt:

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; [A/67/L.28 --- 26 November 2012]
​

Now it is time for the Arab Palestinian to build a "viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel" so that you can achieve something negotiated that will start on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. Establish some credibility and come together on a workable solution that is a benefit to both parties.

Most Respectfully,
R

Balderdash, attempting to justify Israeli neocolonialism as somehow different than, for example, than the Huguenots settling in South Africa to escape Catholic pogroms against them. There is no difference Bozo, your comments just demonstrate your racial hate for arabs. Funny thing is you are probably a good bit Arab given your southern Italian heritage. Self-hating Arab?

As your own link showed there was never any colonialism neo or old outside of your fantasy world. The arab muslims lost all control and ownership of the land in 1099 and never regained control or ownership since. At the end of WW1 the land was transferred from Ottoman control and ownership to LoN control and ownership. It was never transferred to the rag tag group of arab nuslims that term themselves "Palestinians"

Your history is so far off it doesn't deserve a comment. As far as colonialism:

"The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically."

That's exactly what the European Jews did.

They were invited to migrate and settle by the lands LEGAL OWNERS, so they were not occupying the land with settlers they were populating the land given to them by its LEGAL OWNERS.

Not true.

Neither the LoN nor the mandate had possession of any land.

Try again as the treaty of surrender clearly states that ownership of the land was to be transferred as reparations for war. It was the last time that it happened, and it was not just in the M.E. were this happened. It also happened in Europe and the far East with land that was placed under mandate. The only body that could realistically control the ownership was the LoN so it passed into their hands under CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

[Rehmani]

Try this for size then

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

What ever in AL-Quran is "word of Allah(God)" Prophet Mohammad PBUH just Passed on to us, as I reply to you in previous two posts, please follow the advise see some muslim near you to correct your misunderstanding or may be you are reading wrong book.

Like all holy books the Koran is the word of man, not god. It was a mentally defective man that recited the Koran in the 7c, a man that had frontal lobe epilepsy that manifests as delusions, hearing voices and seeing visions. No other person saw or heard these visitations, and as the hadiths tell us Mohamed often recited a different version on the verses on two seperate days. The consensus of opinion is that one of his sex slaves a Jewish girl told him of the Torah and its teachings and he used her stories as the basis for the Koran. He added verses extolling violence and murder because that is what most arabs of the time understood. One arab group worshipped 3 goddesses that manifested as cranes so he introduced them as allahs wives in one section of the Koran. He later claimed that this was given to him by the devil, but did not take them out and have them changed. The Koran is full of mistakes from a god that is supposed to be omnipotent like seminal fluid coming from the spine.

I have seen many muslim clerics in my life and not one has been able to explain the satanic verses, the many mistakes and the violence. I had one who stated that Mohamed had never killed a man in his life, then I showed him the Bukhari hadiths that show he killed many in clod blood. Another denied that he was an Incestuous paedophile until he read the Bukhari hadiths that show he married his brothers 9 year old daughter after changing the laws to allow him to do so.

So it is you that needs to get your brain into gear and read the Koran and hadiths properly to see that it is plagiarism and a terrorist manual.

Try this for size then

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

What ever in AL-Quran is "word of Allah(God)" Prophet Mohammad PBUH just Passed on to us, as I reply to you in previous two posts, please follow the advise see some muslim near you to correct your misunderstanding or may be you are reading wrong book.

Like all holy books the Koran is the word of man, not god. It was a mentally defective man that recited the Koran in the 7c, a man that had frontal lobe epilepsy that manifests as delusions, hearing voices and seeing visions. No other person saw or heard these visitations, and as the hadiths tell us Mohamed often recited a different version on the verses on two seperate days. The consensus of opinion is that one of his sex slaves a Jewish girl told him of the Torah and its teachings and he used her stories as the basis for the Koran. He added verses extolling violence and murder because that is what most arabs of the time understood. One arab group worshipped 3 goddesses that manifested as cranes so he introduced them as allahs wives in one section of the Koran. He later claimed that this was given to him by the devil, but did not take them out and have them changed. The Koran is full of mistakes from a god that is supposed to be omnipotent like seminal fluid coming from the spine.

I have seen many muslim clerics in my life and not one has been able to explain the satanic verses, the many mistakes and the violence. I had one who stated that Mohamed had never killed a man in his life, then I showed him the Bukhari hadiths that show he killed many in clod blood. Another denied that he was an Incestuous paedophile until he read the Bukhari hadiths that show he married his brothers 9 year old daughter after changing the laws to allow him to do so.

So it is you that needs to get your brain into gear and read the Koran and hadiths properly to see that it is plagiarism and a terrorist manual.

Try this for size then

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

What ever in AL-Quran is "word of Allah(God)" Prophet Mohammad PBUH just Passed on to us, as I reply to you in previous two posts, please follow the advise see some muslim near you to correct your misunderstanding or may be you are reading wrong book.

Like all holy books the Koran is the word of man, not god. It was a mentally defective man that recited the Koran in the 7c, a man that had frontal lobe epilepsy that manifests as delusions, hearing voices and seeing visions. No other person saw or heard these visitations, and as the hadiths tell us Mohamed often recited a different version on the verses on two seperate days. The consensus of opinion is that one of his sex slaves a Jewish girl told him of the Torah and its teachings and he used her stories as the basis for the Koran. He added verses extolling violence and murder because that is what most arabs of the time understood. One arab group worshipped 3 goddesses that manifested as cranes so he introduced them as allahs wives in one section of the Koran. He later claimed that this was given to him by the devil, but did not take them out and have them changed. The Koran is full of mistakes from a god that is supposed to be omnipotent like seminal fluid coming from the spine.

I have seen many muslim clerics in my life and not one has been able to explain the satanic verses, the many mistakes and the violence. I had one who stated that Mohamed had never killed a man in his life, then I showed him the Bukhari hadiths that show he killed many in clod blood. Another denied that he was an Incestuous paedophile until he read the Bukhari hadiths that show he married his brothers 9 year old daughter after changing the laws to allow him to do so.

So it is you that needs to get your brain into gear and read the Koran and hadiths properly to see that it is plagiarism and a terrorist manual.

Try this for size then

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

What ever in AL-Quran is "word of Allah(God)" Prophet Mohammad PBUH just Passed on to us, as I reply to you in previous two posts, please follow the advise see some muslim near you to correct your misunderstanding or may be you are reading wrong book.

Like all holy books the Koran is the word of man, not god. It was a mentally defective man that recited the Koran in the 7c, a man that had frontal lobe epilepsy that manifests as delusions, hearing voices and seeing visions. No other person saw or heard these visitations, and as the hadiths tell us Mohamed often recited a different version on the verses on two seperate days. The consensus of opinion is that one of his sex slaves a Jewish girl told him of the Torah and its teachings and he used her stories as the basis for the Koran. He added verses extolling violence and murder because that is what most arabs of the time understood. One arab group worshipped 3 goddesses that manifested as cranes so he introduced them as allahs wives in one section of the Koran. He later claimed that this was given to him by the devil, but did not take them out and have them changed. The Koran is full of mistakes from a god that is supposed to be omnipotent like seminal fluid coming from the spine.

I have seen many muslim clerics in my life and not one has been able to explain the satanic verses, the many mistakes and the violence. I had one who stated that Mohamed had never killed a man in his life, then I showed him the Bukhari hadiths that show he killed many in clod blood. Another denied that he was an Incestuous paedophile until he read the Bukhari hadiths that show he married his brothers 9 year old daughter after changing the laws to allow him to do so.

So it is you that needs to get your brain into gear and read the Koran and hadiths properly to see that it is plagiarism and a terrorist manual.

Jihad for God. And oh all those beautiful photos of beheadings.

Yes I agreed, this is not Islam and I condemned it. But unfortunately when two people fight, one innocent killed or at least one of them is innocent. I hope and wish some day mankind live as one mankind and one nation.

I will advise to whole world especially to Muslim at the moment that please when you become part of an army then you should know that what are the rules set by Islam for a Muslim army that don't hurt civilian and especially these generalist who put their life on risk to bring the facts about you. Other vise how come world know your issues or concern.

It is islam as the Koran tells muslims to sever the heads of their enemies to strike fear in their hearts. Over 200 verses in the Koran compelling muslims to be violent blood thirsty savages. Over 10 million innocent civilians murdered by muslim armies acting on the commands in the Koran in the last 66 years. that is the rules set by islam for anyone who wants to read the Koran.

It is also Al-Quran and Islam who tell to Muslim and the world be discipline, anger control,urinate by sitting and alcohol control and be God fearing, be respect women,children,elders and poorer and it is also Islam who establish world first welfare state 1400 years ago when rest of the was facing dark age. It is also Islam who establish world first multicultural and multireligion state in Jerusalem 900 years ago. It is also Islam who establish women rights 1400 years ago.

AND MORE IF YOU OPEN YOUR NEGATIVE MIND, BE POSITIVE NEGATIVE COME IT SELF BUT IF YOU ARE NEGATIVE YOU CAN NOT SEE POSITIVE THINGS IN ISLAM.

 

[Kondor3]

What ever in AL-Quran is "word of Allah(God)" Prophet Mohammad PBUH just Passed on to us, as I reply to you in previous two posts, please follow the advise see some muslim near you to correct your misunderstanding or may be you are reading wrong book.

Like all holy books the Koran is the word of man, not god. It was a mentally defective man that recited the Koran in the 7c, a man that had frontal lobe epilepsy that manifests as delusions, hearing voices and seeing visions. No other person saw or heard these visitations, and as the hadiths tell us Mohamed often recited a different version on the verses on two seperate days. The consensus of opinion is that one of his sex slaves a Jewish girl told him of the Torah and its teachings and he used her stories as the basis for the Koran. He added verses extolling violence and murder because that is what most arabs of the time understood. One arab group worshipped 3 goddesses that manifested as cranes so he introduced them as allahs wives in one section of the Koran. He later claimed that this was given to him by the devil, but did not take them out and have them changed. The Koran is full of mistakes from a god that is supposed to be omnipotent like seminal fluid coming from the spine.

I have seen many muslim clerics in my life and not one has been able to explain the satanic verses, the many mistakes and the violence. I had one who stated that Mohamed had never killed a man in his life, then I showed him the Bukhari hadiths that show he killed many in clod blood. Another denied that he was an Incestuous paedophile until he read the Bukhari hadiths that show he married his brothers 9 year old daughter after changing the laws to allow him to do so.

So it is you that needs to get your brain into gear and read the Koran and hadiths properly to see that it is plagiarism and a terrorist manual.

What ever in AL-Quran is "word of Allah(God)" Prophet Mohammad PBUH just Passed on to us, as I reply to you in previous two posts, please follow the advise see some muslim near you to correct your misunderstanding or may be you are reading wrong book.

Like all holy books the Koran is the word of man, not god. It was a mentally defective man that recited the Koran in the 7c, a man that had frontal lobe epilepsy that manifests as delusions, hearing voices and seeing visions. No other person saw or heard these visitations, and as the hadiths tell us Mohamed often recited a different version on the verses on two seperate days. The consensus of opinion is that one of his sex slaves a Jewish girl told him of the Torah and its teachings and he used her stories as the basis for the Koran. He added verses extolling violence and murder because that is what most arabs of the time understood. One arab group worshipped 3 goddesses that manifested as cranes so he introduced them as allahs wives in one section of the Koran. He later claimed that this was given to him by the devil, but did not take them out and have them changed. The Koran is full of mistakes from a god that is supposed to be omnipotent like seminal fluid coming from the spine.

I have seen many muslim clerics in my life and not one has been able to explain the satanic verses, the many mistakes and the violence. I had one who stated that Mohamed had never killed a man in his life, then I showed him the Bukhari hadiths that show he killed many in clod blood. Another denied that he was an Incestuous paedophile until he read the Bukhari hadiths that show he married his brothers 9 year old daughter after changing the laws to allow him to do so.

So it is you that needs to get your brain into gear and read the Koran and hadiths properly to see that it is plagiarism and a terrorist manual.

What ever in AL-Quran is "word of Allah(God)" Prophet Mohammad PBUH just Passed on to us, as I reply to you in previous two posts, please follow the advise see some muslim near you to correct your misunderstanding or may be you are reading wrong book.

Like all holy books the Koran is the word of man, not god. It was a mentally defective man that recited the Koran in the 7c, a man that had frontal lobe epilepsy that manifests as delusions, hearing voices and seeing visions. No other person saw or heard these visitations, and as the hadiths tell us Mohamed often recited a different version on the verses on two seperate days. The consensus of opinion is that one of his sex slaves a Jewish girl told him of the Torah and its teachings and he used her stories as the basis for the Koran. He added verses extolling violence and murder because that is what most arabs of the time understood. One arab group worshipped 3 goddesses that manifested as cranes so he introduced them as allahs wives in one section of the Koran. He later claimed that this was given to him by the devil, but did not take them out and have them changed. The Koran is full of mistakes from a god that is supposed to be omnipotent like seminal fluid coming from the spine.

I have seen many muslim clerics in my life and not one has been able to explain the satanic verses, the many mistakes and the violence. I had one who stated that Mohamed had never killed a man in his life, then I showed him the Bukhari hadiths that show he killed many in clod blood. Another denied that he was an Incestuous paedophile until he read the Bukhari hadiths that show he married his brothers 9 year old daughter after changing the laws to allow him to do so.

So it is you that needs to get your brain into gear and read the Koran and hadiths properly to see that it is plagiarism and a terrorist manual.

What ever in AL-Quran is "word of Allah(God)" Prophet Mohammad PBUH just Passed on to us, as I reply to you in previous two posts, please follow the advise see some muslim near you to correct your misunderstanding or may be you are reading wrong book.

Like all holy books the Koran is the word of man, not god. It was a mentally defective man that recited the Koran in the 7c, a man that had frontal lobe epilepsy that manifests as delusions, hearing voices and seeing visions. No other person saw or heard these visitations, and as the hadiths tell us Mohamed often recited a different version on the verses on two seperate days. The consensus of opinion is that one of his sex slaves a Jewish girl told him of the Torah and its teachings and he used her stories as the basis for the Koran. He added verses extolling violence and murder because that is what most arabs of the time understood. One arab group worshipped 3 goddesses that manifested as cranes so he introduced them as allahs wives in one section of the Koran. He later claimed that this was given to him by the devil, but did not take them out and have them changed. The Koran is full of mistakes from a god that is supposed to be omnipotent like seminal fluid coming from the spine.

I have seen many muslim clerics in my life and not one has been able to explain the satanic verses, the many mistakes and the violence. I had one who stated that Mohamed had never killed a man in his life, then I showed him the Bukhari hadiths that show he killed many in clod blood. Another denied that he was an Incestuous paedophile until he read the Bukhari hadiths that show he married his brothers 9 year old daughter after changing the laws to allow him to do so.

So it is you that needs to get your brain into gear and read the Koran and hadiths properly to see that it is plagiarism and a terrorist manual.

Jihad for God. And oh all those beautiful photos of beheadings.

Yes I agreed, this is not Islam and I condemned it. But unfortunately when two people fight, one innocent killed or at least one of them is innocent. I hope and wish some day mankind live as one mankind and one nation.

I will advise to whole world especially to Muslim at the moment that please when you become part of an army then you should know that what are the rules set by Islam for a Muslim army that don't hurt civilian and especially these generalist who put their life on risk to bring the facts about you. Other vise how come world know your issues or concern.

It is islam as the Koran tells muslims to sever the heads of their enemies to strike fear in their hearts. Over 200 verses in the Koran compelling muslims to be violent blood thirsty savages. Over 10 million innocent civilians murdered by muslim armies acting on the commands in the Koran in the last 66 years. that is the rules set by islam for anyone who wants to read the Koran.

It is also Al-Quran and Islam who tell to Muslim and the world be discipline, anger control,urinate by sitting and alcohol control and be God fearing, be respect women,children,elders and poorer and it is also Islam who establish world first welfare state 1400 years ago when rest of the was facing dark age. It is also Islam who establish world first multicultural and multireligion state in Jerusalem 900 years ago. It is also Islam who establish women rights 1400 years ago.

AND MORE IF YOU OPEN YOUR NEGATIVE MIND, BE POSITIVE NEGATIVE COME IT SELF BUT IF YOU ARE NEGATIVE YOU CAN NOT SEE POSITIVE THINGS IN ISLAM.

There is no question that Islam had a Golden Age in which it helped greatly to preserve the knowledge and learning of the Classical or Antiquity Age(s), and in which its scholars made great advances in medicine, science, philosophy and commerce.

The world owes Islam a debt of gratitude for that preservative and advancing work, done during the period of circa 800-1200 A.D.

Trouble is, Islam is susceptible to violence, internally and externally, at an atypically high level, and is more worldly than spiritual in nature, and it quickly fragmented into several power centers and lost its spiritual and intellectual and scientific and political momentum, and ended its Golden Age as a degenerate, despicable and emasculated creature which could no longer project effective political or military or intellectual power, by the time that Europe finally pulled itself out of its Dark and Middle Ages, and went abroad in the world again.

Islam made the mistake of letting its internal squabbling (arguments) get out of control, and of resting for too long on its past glories and laurels, and of not staying current, and allowing the world to pass it by, and becoming a backward, primitive and stagnant cultural and political and spiritual system.

It is only now - within living memory - that Islam is beginning to re-awaken, after centuries of European colonial imperialism and exploitation that early Muslims would have laughed-at and cried-over and spat-upon their descendants for - and Islam is beginning to understand just how far behind the rest of the world that it allowed itself to fall, in the past several hundred years - an awareness made all the more bitter and arriving all the more quickly, courtesy of great advances in communications and technology.

Islam will be playing catch-up for another hundred years or more, but, unlike previous eras in history, the advent of high-end technology, nuclear weaponry, etc.,mean that the rest of the world cannot wait for Islam to catch-up, and that the rest of the world will continue to keep a close eye on Islam, encouraging advances in many areas, but actively discouraging and even inhibiting re-militarization in this new era which might otherwise threaten the rest of the world and the general peace.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You still don't get it.

Not true.

Neither the LoN nor the mandate had possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman/Turkish Government relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers who maintained the effective control (Occupied the territory).

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. Sovereignty is in the hands of the people. This was implied in the LoN Covenant.

Popular sovereignty in its modern sense, that is, including all the people and not just noblemen, is an idea that dates to the social contracts school (mid-17th to mid-18th centuries), represented by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke (1632–1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), author of The Social Contract, a prominent political work that clearly highlighted the ideals of "general will" and further matured the idea of popular sovereignty. The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed. Popular sovereignty is thus a basic tenet of most democracies.

Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The sovereignty was transferred to the people of the respective new countries. This has been reiterated in the UN Charter and subsequent resolutions.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You still don't get it.

Not true.

Neither the LoN nor the mandate had possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman/Turkish Government relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers who maintained the effective control (Occupied the territory).

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. Sovereignty is in the hands of the people. This was implied in the LoN Covenant.

Popular sovereignty in its modern sense, that is, including all the people and not just noblemen, is an idea that dates to the social contracts school (mid-17th to mid-18th centuries), represented by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke (1632–1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), author of The Social Contract, a prominent political work that clearly highlighted the ideals of "general will" and further matured the idea of popular sovereignty. The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed. Popular sovereignty is thus a basic tenet of most democracies.

Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The sovereignty was transferred to the people of the respective new countries. This has been reiterated in the UN Charter and subsequent resolutions.

Right on. So what do you have against Israeli sovereignty?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You still don't get it.

Not true.

Neither the LoN nor the mandate had possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman/Turkish Government relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers who maintained the effective control (Occupied the territory).

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. Sovereignty is in the hands of the people. This was implied in the LoN Covenant.

Popular sovereignty in its modern sense, that is, including all the people and not just noblemen, is an idea that dates to the social contracts school (mid-17th to mid-18th centuries), represented by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke (1632–1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), author of The Social Contract, a prominent political work that clearly highlighted the ideals of "general will" and further matured the idea of popular sovereignty. The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed. Popular sovereignty is thus a basic tenet of most democracies.

Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The sovereignty was transferred to the people of the respective new countries. This has been reiterated in the UN Charter and subsequent resolutions.

Right on. So what do you have against Israeli sovereignty?

Not much really. Let us assume that Israel is a legitimate state. According to international law, all of the people who normally lived in the territory that became Israel would automatically become citizens of that successor state.

That means that all of the Palestinians who normally lived in what became Israel including the refugees are Israeli citizens. The legitimacy of a government is based on the consent of the governed.

When is Israel going to have elections where all of its citizens are allowed to vote?

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You still don't get it.

Not true.

Neither the LoN nor the mandate had possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman/Turkish Government relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers who maintained the effective control (Occupied the territory).

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. Sovereignty is in the hands of the people. This was implied in the LoN Covenant.

Popular sovereignty in its modern sense, that is, including all the people and not just noblemen, is an idea that dates to the social contracts school (mid-17th to mid-18th centuries), represented by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke (1632–1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), author of The Social Contract, a prominent political work that clearly highlighted the ideals of "general will" and further matured the idea of popular sovereignty. The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed. Popular sovereignty is thus a basic tenet of most democracies.

Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The sovereignty was transferred to the people of the respective new countries. This has been reiterated in the UN Charter and subsequent resolutions.

Right on. So what do you have against Israeli sovereignty?

Not much really. Let us assume that Israel is a legitimate state. According to international law, all of the people who normally lived in the territory that became Israel would automatically become citizens of that successor state.

That means that all of the Palestinians who normally lived in what became Israel including the refugees are Israeli citizens. The legitimacy of a government is based on the consent of the governed.

When is Israel going to have elections where all of its citizens are allowed to vote?

Let us not forget that Muslim Palestinian citizens of Israel are even represented in the Israeli Knesset with equal voting rights. So how many Christians or Jews are represented in Arab country governments with equal voting rights?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You still don't get it.

Not true.

Neither the LoN nor the mandate had possession of any land.

(COMMENT)

The Ottoman/Turkish Government relinquished sovereignty to the Allied Powers who maintained the effective control (Occupied the territory).

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. Sovereignty is in the hands of the people. This was implied in the LoN Covenant.

Popular sovereignty in its modern sense, that is, including all the people and not just noblemen, is an idea that dates to the social contracts school (mid-17th to mid-18th centuries), represented by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke (1632–1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), author of The Social Contract, a prominent political work that clearly highlighted the ideals of "general will" and further matured the idea of popular sovereignty. The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed. Popular sovereignty is thus a basic tenet of most democracies.

Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The sovereignty was transferred to the people of the respective new countries. This has been reiterated in the UN Charter and subsequent resolutions.

Right on. So what do you have against Israeli sovereignty?

Not much really. Let us assume that Israel is a legitimate state. According to international law, all of the people who normally lived in the territory that became Israel would automatically become citizens of that successor state.

That means that all of the Palestinians who normally lived in what became Israel including the refugees are Israeli citizens. The legitimacy of a government is based on the consent of the governed.

When is Israel going to have elections where all of its citizens are allowed to vote?

Israel is illegitimate? Who woulda thunk it?