An example of how impossible the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is

[aris2chat]

UN, ICC and Amnesty International have accused hamas of war crimes and using children as human shields.

Just perhaps they are right?????

PA certainly does not want to be held responsible or what hamas did. Arabs don't want to flush anymore money down the gaza toilet. Egypt rarely opens the crossings any more ............. and Israel is destroying more tunnels.

Even the palestinians in gaza are protesting against hamas.

Time to stop blaming Israel and realize that much of the problems of the past and present began with the so called leaders with in the palestinian population.

Time to let peace talks have a chance and for hamas to disarm. PA certainly does not want to have unity talks or plan for elections if hamas remains armed and forcefully contriving gaza.

 

[toastman]

UN, ICC and Amnesty International have accused hamas of war crimes and using children as human shields.

Just perhaps they are right?????

PA certainly does not want to be held responsible or what hamas did. Arabs don't want to flush anymore money down the gaza toilet. Egypt rarely opens the crossings any more ............. and Israel is destroying more tunnels.

Even the palestinians in gaza are protesting against hamas.

Time to stop blaming Israel and realize that much of the problems of the past and present began with the so called leaders with in the palestinian population.

Time to let peace talks have a chance and for hamas to disarm. PA certainly does not want to have unity talks or plan for elections if hamas remains armed and forcefully contriving gaza.

Without Hamas, thousands of dead Palestinians would still be alive. They are a cancer and have done no good whatsoever for Gaza. They brainwash their own people into believing that Jihad is the only way, and that death during jihad is an honorable way to die.

 

[Phoenall]

http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestineQUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11271878, member: 35705"]

Israel can survive only with force, she was placed there by then Western power politics at the UN...

Its really sad, but a Jewish State can never survive, no invader has thus far to this area...The Romans, the Crusaders, the Turks, the Brits...Eventually the Demographic's slow process consumed all comers...

The only hope is maybe a one State solution. But you are right about the hate on both sides, and sadly, there will never be peace.

And you hate and LIES shine out when you claim that Israel was placed there by the UN, when the truth is Israel was placed there 22 years before the UN was invented.

The truth is that Israel would have succumbed to the Arab armies if it did not get Western support and arms to defend herself...

The West still props up Israel and our cost has been high with homeland terrorism in America and Europe.

Israel has wanted an East/West religious/Cultural war, she has achieved this.

In 1948 it was the arab armies that had the weapons from the west, and Israel had no actual support. It was farmers using tractors against tanks, WW1 single shot carbines against modern guns with magazines. It was only when the Jews managed to secure an arms shipment from Eastern Europe that the levelled the field a little bit. What won the day was the Jews having everything to fight for while the arab armies had nothing

Israel can survive only with force, she was placed there by then Western power politics at the UN...

Its really sad, but a Jewish State can never survive, no invader has thus far to this area...The Romans, the Crusaders, the Turks, the Brits...Eventually the Demographic's slow process consumed all comers...

The only hope is maybe a one State solution. But you are right about the hate on both sides, and sadly, there will never be peace.

And you hate and LIES shine out when you claim that Israel was placed there by the UN, when the truth is Israel was placed there 22 years before the UN was invented.

The truth is that Israel would have succumbed to the Arab armies if it did not get Western support and arms to defend herself...

The West still props up Israel and our cost has been high with homeland terrorism in America and Europe.

Israel has wanted an East/West religious/Cultural war, she has achieved this.

In 1948 it was the arab armies that had the weapons from the west, and Israel had no actual support. It was farmers using tractors against tanks, WW1 single shot carbines against modern guns with magazines. It was only when the Jews managed to secure an arms shipment from Eastern Europe that the levelled the field a little bit. What won the day was the Jews having everything to fight for while the arab armies had nothing

Yeah right. Still slinging the Zionist propaganda.

"the many advantages enjoyed by the nascent Jewish state over its enemies: the decomposition of Palestinian society; the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

You do realise your source is a neo Marxist front that is anti American, and supporter of left wing dictorships.

As its former editor said "Le Monde diplomatique is a journal of opinion; Le Monde is a journal of opinions."

So hardly an unbiased source of any tangible proof of anything relating to the arab/Israeli conflict.


Another islamomoron propaganda piece by monte the team headed by Haniya

Is sliming the source all you got?

Sad.[/QUOTE]




Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story

 

[P F Tinmore]

http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestineQUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11271878, member: 35705"]

And you hate and LIES shine out when you claim that Israel was placed there by the UN, when the truth is Israel was placed there 22 years before the UN was invented.

The truth is that Israel would have succumbed to the Arab armies if it did not get Western support and arms to defend herself...

The West still props up Israel and our cost has been high with homeland terrorism in America and Europe.

Israel has wanted an East/West religious/Cultural war, she has achieved this.

In 1948 it was the arab armies that had the weapons from the west, and Israel had no actual support. It was farmers using tractors against tanks, WW1 single shot carbines against modern guns with magazines. It was only when the Jews managed to secure an arms shipment from Eastern Europe that the levelled the field a little bit. What won the day was the Jews having everything to fight for while the arab armies had nothing

And you hate and LIES shine out when you claim that Israel was placed there by the UN, when the truth is Israel was placed there 22 years before the UN was invented.

The truth is that Israel would have succumbed to the Arab armies if it did not get Western support and arms to defend herself...

The West still props up Israel and our cost has been high with homeland terrorism in America and Europe.

Israel has wanted an East/West religious/Cultural war, she has achieved this.

In 1948 it was the arab armies that had the weapons from the west, and Israel had no actual support. It was farmers using tractors against tanks, WW1 single shot carbines against modern guns with magazines. It was only when the Jews managed to secure an arms shipment from Eastern Europe that the levelled the field a little bit. What won the day was the Jews having everything to fight for while the arab armies had nothing

Yeah right. Still slinging the Zionist propaganda.

"the many advantages enjoyed by the nascent Jewish state over its enemies: the decomposition of Palestinian society; the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

You do realise your source is a neo Marxist front that is anti American, and supporter of left wing dictorships.

As its former editor said "Le Monde diplomatique is a journal of opinion; Le Monde is a journal of opinions."

So hardly an unbiased source of any tangible proof of anything relating to the arab/Israeli conflict.


Another islamomoron propaganda piece by monte the team headed by Haniya

Is sliming the source all you got?

Sad.

Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story[/QUOTE]
Does there have to be a difference?

 

[Phoenall]

http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestineQUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11271878, member: 35705"]

The truth is that Israel would have succumbed to the Arab armies if it did not get Western support and arms to defend herself...

The West still props up Israel and our cost has been high with homeland terrorism in America and Europe.

Israel has wanted an East/West religious/Cultural war, she has achieved this.

In 1948 it was the arab armies that had the weapons from the west, and Israel had no actual support. It was farmers using tractors against tanks, WW1 single shot carbines against modern guns with magazines. It was only when the Jews managed to secure an arms shipment from Eastern Europe that the levelled the field a little bit. What won the day was the Jews having everything to fight for while the arab armies had nothing

The truth is that Israel would have succumbed to the Arab armies if it did not get Western support and arms to defend herself...

The West still props up Israel and our cost has been high with homeland terrorism in America and Europe.

Israel has wanted an East/West religious/Cultural war, she has achieved this.

In 1948 it was the arab armies that had the weapons from the west, and Israel had no actual support. It was farmers using tractors against tanks, WW1 single shot carbines against modern guns with magazines. It was only when the Jews managed to secure an arms shipment from Eastern Europe that the levelled the field a little bit. What won the day was the Jews having everything to fight for while the arab armies had nothing

Yeah right. Still slinging the Zionist propaganda.

"the many advantages enjoyed by the nascent Jewish state over its enemies: the decomposition of Palestinian society; the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

You do realise your source is a neo Marxist front that is anti American, and supporter of left wing dictorships.

As its former editor said "Le Monde diplomatique is a journal of opinion; Le Monde is a journal of opinions."

So hardly an unbiased source of any tangible proof of anything relating to the arab/Israeli conflict.


Another islamomoron propaganda piece by monte the team headed by Haniya

Is sliming the source all you got?

Sad.

Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story

Does there have to be a difference?[/QUOTE]



To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story

 

[P F Tinmore]

http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestineQUOTE="Phoenall, post: 11271878, member: 35705"]In 1948 it was the arab armies that had the weapons from the west, and Israel had no actual support. It was farmers using tractors against tanks, WW1 single shot carbines against modern guns with magazines. It was only when the Jews managed to secure an arms shipment from Eastern Europe that the levelled the field a little bit. What won the day was the Jews having everything to fight for while the arab armies had nothing

In 1948 it was the arab armies that had the weapons from the west, and Israel had no actual support. It was farmers using tractors against tanks, WW1 single shot carbines against modern guns with magazines. It was only when the Jews managed to secure an arms shipment from Eastern Europe that the levelled the field a little bit. What won the day was the Jews having everything to fight for while the arab armies had nothing

Yeah right. Still slinging the Zionist propaganda.

"the many advantages enjoyed by the nascent Jewish state over its enemies: the decomposition of Palestinian society; the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

You do realise your source is a neo Marxist front that is anti American, and supporter of left wing dictorships.

As its former editor said "Le Monde diplomatique is a journal of opinion; Le Monde is a journal of opinions."

So hardly an unbiased source of any tangible proof of anything relating to the arab/Israeli conflict.


Another islamomoron propaganda piece by monte the team headed by Haniya

Is sliming the source all you got?

Sad.

Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story

Does there have to be a difference?

To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story[/QUOTE]
Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?

 

[Phoenall]

Yeah right. Still slinging the Zionist propaganda.

"the many advantages enjoyed by the nascent Jewish state over its enemies: the decomposition of Palestinian society; the divisions in the Arab world and the inferiority of their armed forces (in terms of numbers, training and weaponry, and hence impact); the strategic advantage enjoyed by Israel as a result of its agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan (in exchange for the West Bank, he undertook not to attack the territory allocated to Israel by the UN); British support for this compromise, together with the joint support of the United States and the Soviet Union; the sympathy of world public opinion and so forth."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

You do realise your source is a neo Marxist front that is anti American, and supporter of left wing dictorships.

As its former editor said "Le Monde diplomatique is a journal of opinion; Le Monde is a journal of opinions."

So hardly an unbiased source of any tangible proof of anything relating to the arab/Israeli conflict.


Another islamomoron propaganda piece by monte the team headed by Haniya

Is sliming the source all you got?

Sad.

Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story

Does there have to be a difference?

To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story

Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?[/QUOTE]




It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You do realise your source is a neo Marxist front that is anti American, and supporter of left wing dictorships.

As its former editor said "Le Monde diplomatique is a journal of opinion; Le Monde is a journal of opinions."

So hardly an unbiased source of any tangible proof of anything relating to the arab/Israeli conflict.


Another islamomoron propaganda piece by monte the team headed by Haniya

Is sliming the source all you got?

Sad.

Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story

Does there have to be a difference?

To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story

Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?

It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.[/QUOTE]


Now THAT is funny.

 

[Phoenall]

Is sliming the source all you got?

Sad.

Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story

Does there have to be a difference?

To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story

Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?

It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.

Now THAT is funny.[/QUOTE]





So now you dispute reality as a measure of honesty. Like the attacks by hamas on children, or the human shields admitted to by hamas ? All detailed by the Israeli media

 

[toastman]

Is sliming the source all you got?

Sad.

Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story

Does there have to be a difference?

To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story

Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?

It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.

Now THAT is funny.[/QUOTE]

You don't believe any of the facts that are presented to you, even with all the evidence provided.

Why are you laughing? Phoenall is absolutely right. The lies and propaganda that comes out of the pro 'Palestinian' side is on a different level. It is unmatched by any other group. I'm certain that even someone who is neither pro Israeli or pro Palestinian would agree with that. Without lies and propaganda, the Palestinians would have very little support.

 

[Phoenall]

Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story

Does there have to be a difference?

To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story

Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?

It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.

Now THAT is funny.

You don't believe any of the facts that are presented to you, even with all the evidence provided.

Why are you laughing? Phoenall is absolutely right. The lies and propaganda that comes out of the pro 'Palestinian' side is on a different level. It is unmatched by any other group. I'm certain that even someone who is neither pro Israeli or pro Palestinian would agree with that. Without lies and propaganda, the Palestinians would have very little support.[/QUOTE]





They don't have that much anyway, most of it is just lip service and empty promises.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is it when the source is biased in the extreme and is designed to demonise Israel. Would you say that hamas will report the truth in regards to Israel, or will it report its side of the story

Does there have to be a difference?

To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story

Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?

It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.

Now THAT is funny.

You don't believe any of the facts that are presented to you, even with all the evidence provided.

Why are you laughing? Phoenall is absolutely right. The lies and propaganda that comes out of the pro 'Palestinian' side is on a different level. It is unmatched by any other group. I'm certain that even someone who is neither pro Israeli or pro Palestinian would agree with that. Without lies and propaganda, the Palestinians would have very little support.[/QUOTE]
How about pulling out one of those lies for closer scrutiny?

 

[toastman]

Does there have to be a difference?

To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story

Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?

It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.

Now THAT is funny.

You don't believe any of the facts that are presented to you, even with all the evidence provided.

Why are you laughing? Phoenall is absolutely right. The lies and propaganda that comes out of the pro 'Palestinian' side is on a different level. It is unmatched by any other group. I'm certain that even someone who is neither pro Israeli or pro Palestinian would agree with that. Without lies and propaganda, the Palestinians would have very little support.

How about pulling out one of those lies for closer scrutiny?[/QUOTE]

I don't have lies. I have facts which I back up with valid information. Unlike you.

How about we both provide out evidence about Israel borders. You claim they have none lol yet you have ZERO evidence to back it up. When I provide the indisputable evidence to prove that Israel DOES in fact have internationally recognized borders, you resort to asking stupid irrelevant questions.

So, you go ahead and provide your links that 'prove' Israel has no borders, and I'll post my links . Ok?

I do feel stupid even bothering to debate about something that is so obvious, but it's always fun to prove to everyone that you are a compulsive liar.

 

[P F Tinmore]

To be decent and unbiased yes there does, but you only ever see the islamonazi side of the story

Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?

It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.

Now THAT is funny.

You don't believe any of the facts that are presented to you, even with all the evidence provided.

Why are you laughing? Phoenall is absolutely right. The lies and propaganda that comes out of the pro 'Palestinian' side is on a different level. It is unmatched by any other group. I'm certain that even someone who is neither pro Israeli or pro Palestinian would agree with that. Without lies and propaganda, the Palestinians would have very little support.

How about pulling out one of those lies for closer scrutiny?

I don't have lies. I have facts which I back up with valid information. Unlike you.

How about we both provide out evidence about Israel borders. You claim they have none lol yet you have ZERO evidence to back it up. When I provide the indisputable evidence to prove that Israel DOES in fact have internationally recognized borders, you resort to asking stupid irrelevant questions.

So, you go ahead and provide your links that 'prove' Israel has no borders, and I'll post my links . Ok?

I do feel stupid even bothering to debate about something that is so obvious, but it's always fun to prove to everyone that you are a compulsive liar.[/QUOTE]
That goes back to a question y'all have been dancing around for years.

 

[toastman]

Does that mean that I have to believe the shit that Israel shovels?

It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.

Now THAT is funny.

You don't believe any of the facts that are presented to you, even with all the evidence provided.

Why are you laughing? Phoenall is absolutely right. The lies and propaganda that comes out of the pro 'Palestinian' side is on a different level. It is unmatched by any other group. I'm certain that even someone who is neither pro Israeli or pro Palestinian would agree with that. Without lies and propaganda, the Palestinians would have very little support.

How about pulling out one of those lies for closer scrutiny?

I don't have lies. I have facts which I back up with valid information. Unlike you.

How about we both provide out evidence about Israel borders. You claim they have none lol yet you have ZERO evidence to back it up. When I provide the indisputable evidence to prove that Israel DOES in fact have internationally recognized borders, you resort to asking stupid irrelevant questions.

So, you go ahead and provide your links that 'prove' Israel has no borders, and I'll post my links . Ok?

I do feel stupid even bothering to debate about something that is so obvious, but it's always fun to prove to everyone that you are a compulsive liar.

That goes back to a question y'all have been dancing around for years.[/QUOTE]

Go ahead and ask any question you want. That's one of your Tinmore tactics. When you are proven wrong about something, you ask a ridiculous irrelevant questions and if no one has the answer you like, you act as if you are somehow correct.

The problem with that is you never provide any evidence. For example, you always ask the stupid question : When did land get transferred to Israel?.

There was no land transfer, because there never needed to be. Then I ask you this question which you have been avoiding for a loooooong time:

Where does it say that a country needs to have land TRANSFERRED to them to declare independence.?

This is around the time when you start with your deflections.

So, about your evidence about Israel NOT having borders.....links??

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is more truthful than anything the arab muslims put out, as the evidence shows.

Now THAT is funny.

You don't believe any of the facts that are presented to you, even with all the evidence provided.

Why are you laughing? Phoenall is absolutely right. The lies and propaganda that comes out of the pro 'Palestinian' side is on a different level. It is unmatched by any other group. I'm certain that even someone who is neither pro Israeli or pro Palestinian would agree with that. Without lies and propaganda, the Palestinians would have very little support.

How about pulling out one of those lies for closer scrutiny?

I don't have lies. I have facts which I back up with valid information. Unlike you.

How about we both provide out evidence about Israel borders. You claim they have none lol yet you have ZERO evidence to back it up. When I provide the indisputable evidence to prove that Israel DOES in fact have internationally recognized borders, you resort to asking stupid irrelevant questions.

So, you go ahead and provide your links that 'prove' Israel has no borders, and I'll post my links . Ok?

I do feel stupid even bothering to debate about something that is so obvious, but it's always fun to prove to everyone that you are a compulsive liar.

That goes back to a question y'all have been dancing around for years.

Go ahead and ask any question you want. That's one of your Tinmore tactics. When you are proven wrong about something, you ask a ridiculous irrelevant questions and if no one has the answer you like, you act as if you are somehow correct.

The problem with that is you never provide any evidence. For example, you always ask the stupid question : When did land get transferred to Israel?.

There was no land transfer, because there never needed to be. Then I ask you this question which you have been avoiding for a loooooong time:

Where does it say that a country needs to have land TRANSFERRED to them to declare independence.?

This is around the time when you start with your deflections.

So, about your evidence about Israel NOT having borders.....links??[/QUOTE]

Where does it say that a country needs to have land TRANSFERRED to them to declare independence.?​

Under normal circumstances it is not an issue. The Lebanese declared independence in Lebanon. No land transfer was necessary. The Syrians declared independence in Syria. No land transfer was necessary. The Jordanians declared independence in Jordan No land transfer was necessary.

Israel declared independence in Palestine.

Do you see a difference?

 

[toastman]

Now THAT is funny.

You don't believe any of the facts that are presented to you, even with all the evidence provided.

Why are you laughing? Phoenall is absolutely right. The lies and propaganda that comes out of the pro 'Palestinian' side is on a different level. It is unmatched by any other group. I'm certain that even someone who is neither pro Israeli or pro Palestinian would agree with that. Without lies and propaganda, the Palestinians would have very little support.

How about pulling out one of those lies for closer scrutiny?

I don't have lies. I have facts which I back up with valid information. Unlike you.

How about we both provide out evidence about Israel borders. You claim they have none lol yet you have ZERO evidence to back it up. When I provide the indisputable evidence to prove that Israel DOES in fact have internationally recognized borders, you resort to asking stupid irrelevant questions.

So, you go ahead and provide your links that 'prove' Israel has no borders, and I'll post my links . Ok?

I do feel stupid even bothering to debate about something that is so obvious, but it's always fun to prove to everyone that you are a compulsive liar.

That goes back to a question y'all have been dancing around for years.

Go ahead and ask any question you want. That's one of your Tinmore tactics. When you are proven wrong about something, you ask a ridiculous irrelevant questions and if no one has the answer you like, you act as if you are somehow correct.

The problem with that is you never provide any evidence. For example, you always ask the stupid question : When did land get transferred to Israel?.

There was no land transfer, because there never needed to be. Then I ask you this question which you have been avoiding for a loooooong time:

Where does it say that a country needs to have land TRANSFERRED to them to declare independence.?

This is around the time when you start with your deflections.

So, about your evidence about Israel NOT having borders.....links??

Where does it say that a country needs to have land TRANSFERRED to them to declare independence.?​

Under normal circumstances it is not an issue. The Lebanese declared independence in Lebanon. No land transfer was necessary. The Syrians declared independence in Syria. No land transfer was necessary. The Jordanians declared independence in Jordan No land transfer was necessary.

Israel declared independence in Palestine.

Do you see a difference?[/QUOTE]

What I see is a bunch of deflections. Israel declared independence on land allotted to her by the PARTITION plan , the SAME way the Palestinians did so in 1988.

If Israel was not allowed to declare independence the way they did, then why did the U.N not say anything about it? In fact, the U.N recognized Israel and made them a full member one year later.

You cannot make your own pre requisites for declaring independence.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a shell-game of absolutely no consequence. You are trying to suggest that the name of a country must match the name of the territory under which the Mandate applied. That would be incorrect. You are also implying that there was a separate mandate for Trans-Jordanian, which there was not.

Lastly, both the mandates contain a special clause providing that, on the termination of the mandatory regime, it will be incumbent on the Council of the League of Nations to use its influence to ensure that financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of the countries in question during the period of the mandate are henceforward duly honoured.

The Mandate for Syria and Lebanon contains a special provision to the effect that the Mandatory is to frame for these countries an organic law taking into account the rights, interests and wishes of all their populations and that he is to facilitate the progressive development of the two countries as independent States. French and Arabic are the official languages of Syria and Lebanon. The Mandatory is to encourage public education, which is to be given through the medium of the native languages in use in the territories of Syria and Lebanon.

In the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, the Article establishing the principle of economic equality contains clauses similar to those included in the "B" Mandates (see page 26) with regard to concessions and monopolies.

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". SOURCE: The Mandate System LoN/1945.VI.A.1 30 April 1945​

Under normal circumstances it is not an issue. The Lebanese declared independence in Lebanon. No land transfer was necessary. The Syrians declared independence in Syria. No land transfer was necessary. The Jordanians declared independence in Jordan No land transfer was necessary.

Israel declared independence in Palestine.

Do you see a difference?

(CLARIFICATION)

Point #1:

This position was understood from 1922 through 1946; when the territory was reduced by 77% - when the provisional government of Trans-Jordania was granted full independence. Thereafter, Palestine referred to the remaining 23% of the territory (not provisionally recognized).​

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:

"There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25." SOURCE: League of Nations 19 JULY 29
​

​

Point #2:

Israel did not declare independence "in Palestine." The Jewish declare Independence over the allocated portion of the remaining territory territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied. In 1946, approximately 77% of the territory to which the Mandate applied, was granted independence:

His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan; Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Article I

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. SOURCE: Page 144 UN Treaty Series 1947

On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

(COMMENT)

The Tinmore Question: Do you see a difference?

• ANSWER: Yes, I understand your question. And you don't understand the difference.

The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine; originally included the provisionally recognized independence of Trans-Jordan. Lebanon, Syria and Jordan were all declared independent on territories relative to the respective areas covered by the appropriate Mandate. When the people of a territory declare independence, it does not matter what name they choose for their country (less duplicates).

Your logic is neither sound nor valid.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a shell-game of absolutely no consequence. You are trying to suggest that the name of a country must match the name of the territory under which the Mandate applied. That would be incorrect. You are also implying that there was a separate mandate for Trans-Jordanian, which there was not.

Lastly, both the mandates contain a special clause providing that, on the termination of the mandatory regime, it will be incumbent on the Council of the League of Nations to use its influence to ensure that financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of the countries in question during the period of the mandate are henceforward duly honoured.

The Mandate for Syria and Lebanon contains a special provision to the effect that the Mandatory is to frame for these countries an organic law taking into account the rights, interests and wishes of all their populations and that he is to facilitate the progressive development of the two countries as independent States. French and Arabic are the official languages of Syria and Lebanon. The Mandatory is to encourage public education, which is to be given through the medium of the native languages in use in the territories of Syria and Lebanon.

In the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, the Article establishing the principle of economic equality contains clauses similar to those included in the "B" Mandates (see page 26) with regard to concessions and monopolies.

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". SOURCE: The Mandate System LoN/1945.VI.A.1 30 April 1945​

Under normal circumstances it is not an issue. The Lebanese declared independence in Lebanon. No land transfer was necessary. The Syrians declared independence in Syria. No land transfer was necessary. The Jordanians declared independence in Jordan No land transfer was necessary.

Israel declared independence in Palestine.

Do you see a difference?

(CLARIFICATION)

Point #1:

This position was understood from 1922 through 1946; when the territory was reduced by 77% - when the provisional government of Trans-Jordania was granted full independence. Thereafter, Palestine referred to the remaining 23% of the territory (not provisionally recognized).​

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:

"There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25." SOURCE: League of Nations 19 JULY 29
​

​

Point #2:

Israel did not declare independence "in Palestine." The Jewish declare Independence over the allocated portion of the remaining territory territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied. In 1946, approximately 77% of the territory to which the Mandate applied, was granted independence:

His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan; Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Article I

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. SOURCE: Page 144 UN Treaty Series 1947

On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

(COMMENT)

The Tinmore Question: Do you see a difference?

• ANSWER: Yes, I understand your question. And you don't understand the difference.

The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine; originally included the provisionally recognized independence of Trans-Jordan. Lebanon, Syria and Jordan were all declared independent on territories relative to the respective areas covered by the appropriate Mandate. When the people of a territory declare independence, it does not matter what name they choose for their country (less duplicates).

You logic is neither sound nor valid.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Excellent post, as usual Rocco

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a shell-game of absolutely no consequence. You are trying to suggest that the name of a country must match the name of the territory under which the Mandate applied. That would be incorrect. You are also implying that there was a separate mandate for Trans-Jordanian, which there was not.

Lastly, both the mandates contain a special clause providing that, on the termination of the mandatory regime, it will be incumbent on the Council of the League of Nations to use its influence to ensure that financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of the countries in question during the period of the mandate are henceforward duly honoured.

The Mandate for Syria and Lebanon contains a special provision to the effect that the Mandatory is to frame for these countries an organic law taking into account the rights, interests and wishes of all their populations and that he is to facilitate the progressive development of the two countries as independent States. French and Arabic are the official languages of Syria and Lebanon. The Mandatory is to encourage public education, which is to be given through the medium of the native languages in use in the territories of Syria and Lebanon.

In the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, the Article establishing the principle of economic equality contains clauses similar to those included in the "B" Mandates (see page 26) with regard to concessions and monopolies.

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". SOURCE: The Mandate System LoN/1945.VI.A.1 30 April 1945​

Under normal circumstances it is not an issue. The Lebanese declared independence in Lebanon. No land transfer was necessary. The Syrians declared independence in Syria. No land transfer was necessary. The Jordanians declared independence in Jordan No land transfer was necessary.

Israel declared independence in Palestine.

Do you see a difference?

(CLARIFICATION)

Point #1:

This position was understood from 1922 through 1946; when the territory was reduced by 77% - when the provisional government of Trans-Jordania was granted full independence. Thereafter, Palestine referred to the remaining 23% of the territory (not provisionally recognized).​

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:

"There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25." SOURCE: League of Nations 19 JULY 29
​

​

Point #2:

Israel did not declare independence "in Palestine." The Jewish declare Independence over the allocated portion of the remaining territory territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied. In 1946, approximately 77% of the territory to which the Mandate applied, was granted independence:

His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan; Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Article I

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. SOURCE: Page 144 UN Treaty Series 1947

On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

(COMMENT)

The Tinmore Question: Do you see a difference?

• ANSWER: Yes, I understand your question. And you don't understand the difference.

The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine; originally included the provisionally recognized independence of Trans-Jordan. Lebanon, Syria and Jordan were all declared independent on territories relative to the respective areas covered by the appropriate Mandate. When the people of a territory declare independence, it does not matter what name they choose for their country (less duplicates).

You logic is neither sound nor valid.

Most Respectfully,
R​

You are trying to suggest that the name of a country must match the name of the territory under which the Mandate applied.​

No. I am matching the people to their place.