Boycott Israel

[RoccoR]

theliq, et al,

Maybe there is an answer here. Maybe you have heard the answers; but don't believe it or have not captured it. Or, maybe it eludes use all.

For more than a millennium philosopher have been discussion the essence of "truth" (what is it, what makes a truth true, and what does it mean) as its own entity. In the neo-classical theories in contemporary times (starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), How can it be that what the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian comprehends as truthful can be different from what the pro-Israeli accepts as true?

The fundamental to "truth" is held in what each recognizes as "true" if it corresponds to reality --- what actually agreed upon as "fact."

And this is the essence of the difference between what the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian comprehends as truthful in comparison to what the pro-Israeli accepts as true; and is directly applicable to this issue of "invasion."

§ Did the "Zionist Invade in Palestine?"
​

To determine the truth, we must know:

• What time period are we talking about?
• What is a Zionist?
• What and where is Palestine?
• What does "invade" mean? OR What is an invasion?
​

It might be worth looking at the Arab Invasions:

The First Islamic Empire. During the seventh century the Arabs invaded North Africa three times, bringing not just a new religion but a language and customs that were alien to the native Berber tribes of the Sahara and Mediterranean hinterland.

Huh,but the Zionist Invasion in Palestine was an abomination,funny how you omitted this

(COMMENT)

Let's examine the word "invasion." If the Key Word "invasion" is untrue, the entire statement is without merit.

​

Here, I've included three definitions (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary #1, the Vocabulary.com Dictionary #2 and the Definitions.net Dictionary #3) for the key word used: "Invasion." I used multiple sources to ensure the definitions were not "cherry-picked" to fit the response.

Dictionary #1 has the basis of "attack" -- "into Hostile Territory."
• The movement of Jewish People into the "Territory under the Mandate" was not an "attack" (facilitate Jewish immigration) and the territory was not hostile (Allied Powers have agreed to entrust to a Mandatory the administration of the territory of Palestine).

Dictionaries #2 and #3 have identified a common purpose: "Conquest and Plunder."

• To secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the:

• Reconstituting the Jewish national home.
• The development of self-governing institutions.
• Safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
​

Nowhere in the Palestine Order in Council or the Mandate for Palestine is the terms "Conquest" or "Plunder;" or the intention expressed (implicitly or explicitly).

The Allied Powers recognized a need for a Jewish Agency that could function as a public body for the PURPOSE of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine. The Allied Powers had appointed (1922 Article 4 Mandate) the "Zionist Organization" to fulfill this void. In 1929, the World Zionist Organization created the Jewish Agency to accomplish the Article 4 needs and to assist and encourage Jews worldwide to help develop and settle Israel.

THUS, there was no invasion. There was Applied Powers authorized immigration under the administration of the Mandatory. There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder.


Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[Indeependent]

It might be worth looking at the Arab Invasions:

The First Islamic Empire. During the seventh century the Arabs invaded North Africa three times, bringing not just a new religion but a language and customs that were alien to the native Berber tribes of the Sahara and Mediterranean hinterland.

Huh,but the Zionist Invasion in Palestine was an abomination,funny how you omitted this

A space after each comma and DON'T start a sentence with "Huh".
And it's "Invasion of Palestine", not "Invasion in Palestine".
And no period.

There's no way you're a Jew.

Who knows Indie,but I know I could be if I wanted to,like Millions of other converts.........but never a Zionist,steve

I hope you would never be a Zionist.
Who needs a self hating parasite like you hanging around?

Brilliant>>>>>>We actually agree......................Not self Hating in any way but would be if I was a Terrorist Zionist.......how do you lie straight in bed??????Lie by all means,if you must but what a life to lead.........

I don't understand your post.
I sleep quite comfortably knowing I'm not surrounded by Arabs.
I take it you are also not surrounded by Arabs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

theliq, et al,

Maybe there is an answer here. Maybe you have heard the answers; but don't believe it or have not captured it. Or, maybe it eludes use all.

For more than a millennium philosopher have been discussion the essence of "truth" (what is it, what makes a truth true, and what does it mean) as its own entity. In the neo-classical theories in contemporary times (starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), How can it be that what the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian comprehends as truthful can be different from what the pro-Israeli accepts as true?

The fundamental to "truth" is held in what each recognizes as "true" if it corresponds to reality --- what actually agreed upon as "fact."

And this is the essence of the difference between what the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian comprehends as truthful in comparison to what the pro-Israeli accepts as true; and is directly applicable to this issue of "invasion."

§ Did the "Zionist Invade in Palestine?"
​

To determine the truth, we must know:

• What time period are we talking about?
• What is a Zionist?
• What and where is Palestine?
• What does "invade" mean? OR What is an invasion?
​

It might be worth looking at the Arab Invasions:

The First Islamic Empire. During the seventh century the Arabs invaded North Africa three times, bringing not just a new religion but a language and customs that were alien to the native Berber tribes of the Sahara and Mediterranean hinterland.

Huh,but the Zionist Invasion in Palestine was an abomination,funny how you omitted this

(COMMENT)

Let's examine the word "invasion." If the Key Word "invasion" is untrue, the entire statement is without merit.

View attachment 88318 View attachment 88316 View attachment 88315
​

Here, I've included three definitions (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary #1, the Vocabulary.com Dictionary #2 and the Definitions.net Dictionary #3) for the key word used: "Invasion." I used multiple sources to ensure the definitions were not "cherry-picked" to fit the response.

Dictionary #1 has the basis of "attack" -- "into Hostile Territory."
• The movement of Jewish People into the "Territory under the Mandate" was not an "attack" (facilitate Jewish immigration) and the territory was not hostile (Allied Powers have agreed to entrust to a Mandatory the administration of the territory of Palestine).

Dictionaries #2 and #3 have identified a common purpose: "Conquest and Plunder."

• To secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the:

• Reconstituting the Jewish national home.
• The development of self-governing institutions.
• Safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
​

Nowhere in the Palestine Order in Council or the Mandate for Palestine is the terms "Conquest" or "Plunder;" or the intention expressed (implicitly or explicitly).

The Allied Powers recognized a need for a Jewish Agency that could function as a public body for the PURPOSE of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine. The Allied Powers had appointed (1922 Article 4 Mandate) the "Zionist Organization" to fulfill this void. In 1929, the World Zionist Organization created the Jewish Agency to accomplish the Article 4 needs and to assist and encourage Jews worldwide to help develop and settle Israel.

THUS, there was no invasion. There was Applied Powers authorized immigration under the administration of the Mandatory. There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder.


Most Respectfully,
R​

There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder.​

There was, but not in the classical sense. Britain was the occupying power in Palestine from 1917 until the Treaty of Lausenne. Then Britain changed the name, but not the status, from occupier to Mandate. There was no visible invasion as Britain already had military control of the territory.

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew is forces leaving a handful of advisors behind. That was in line with the LoN Covenant.

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military force. This was evidence that they planned on pulling some shit that was affirmed by their actions over the next thirty years.

Over those thirty years, Britain allowed the Zionists to build their military. At the same time the British kept the Palestinians disarmed while arresting, exiling or killing their leadership.

When the Zionists attacked Palestine before the 1948 war there was no apparent invasion because their military was already in house.

 

[SAYIT]

...The handful of former Ottoman serfs and village and and desert dwellers who were on hand in 1948 and the ghoulash of migrants from diverse Arab regional tribes who flooded into the place for jobs in the first few decades of the 20th century, had their chance...

The UN relief agency responsible for gathering, feeding, housing, clothing and coddling those Arab "refugees" applied only the flimsiest of eligibility criteria and there is little to no reason to believe any who applied for "3 free hots and a cot" in that WW2 ravaged economy were turned away.

In other words, one need not have been a refugee of the Arab-Israel War of 1948 to sign up.

...Trouble for them, is that they (1) lacked the foresight and common sense that God gave a pissant, to do just that, (2) were gullible and stupid enough to believe their Arab neighbors when told that they should run and let their neighbors do their fighting for them, and (3) they snapped-up that offer in a heartbeat, and ran like the timid little rabbits that they were (and are)...

The Arabs certainly made their own bed and have since 1948 demanded a "do-over." Not gonna happen:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948–49

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States..." - The Arabs by Edward Atiyah, Secretary of the Arab League Office in London.

 

[SAYIT]

There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder...

Indeed their was but it wasn't the Zionist "army" you claim but rather the armies of the 5 surrounding Arab states.

...When the Zionists attacked Palestine before the 1948 war there was no apparent invasion because their military was already in house.

One could hardly call Israel's militias an army in 1948 but they were small forces which had organized to defend the region's Jews from the vicious attacks by their "peaceful" Arab neighbors.

You do inadvertently make a valid point ... Jews were already there and had already secured international support for a Jewish Homeland. They were not the "invading" force you pretend they were.

 

[P F Tinmore]

...The handful of former Ottoman serfs and village and and desert dwellers who were on hand in 1948 and the ghoulash of migrants from diverse Arab regional tribes who flooded into the place for jobs in the first few decades of the 20th century, had their chance...

The UN relief agency responsible for gathering, feeding, housing, clothing and coddling those Arab "refugees" applied only the flimsiest of eligibility criteria and there is little to no reason to believe any who applied for "3 free hots and a cot" in that WW2 ravaged economy were turned away.

In other words, one need not have been a refugee of the Arab-Israel War of 1948 to sign up.

...Trouble for them, is that they (1) lacked the foresight and common sense that God gave a pissant, to do just that, (2) were gullible and stupid enough to believe their Arab neighbors when told that they should run and let their neighbors do their fighting for them, and (3) they snapped-up that offer in a heartbeat, and ran like the timid little rabbits that they were (and are)...

The Arabs certainly made their own bed and have since 1948 demanded a "do-over." Not gonna happen:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948–49

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States..." - The Arabs by Edward Atiyah, Secretary of the Arab League Office in London.

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, blah, blah, blah.​

Israel constantly pounds on this issue but it is really meaningless.

The reason people leave a conflict zone is irrelevant to the right to return. They could have just gone to Jordan for coffee and still have the right to return.

 

[SAYIT]

The Arabs certainly made their own bed and have since 1948 demanded a "do-over." Not gonna happen:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948–49

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States..." - The Arabs by Edward Atiyah, Secretary of the Arab League Office in London.

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, blah, blah, blah. Israel constantly pounds on this issue but it is really meaningless. The reason people leave a conflict zone is irrelevant to the right to return. They could have just gone to Jordan for coffee and still have the right to return.

Conveniently "meaningless" to you but no country is required to resettle hostile "refugees" who may (or may not) have resided in that country at some previous time. As already mentioned, the UN relief agency had only minimal eligibility requirements and even they may have been ignored in the rush to sign up Arab "refugees" for 3-hots-&-a-cot. Hell, even Arafat was an Egyptian.

 

[Phoenall]

theliq, et al,

Maybe there is an answer here. Maybe you have heard the answers; but don't believe it or have not captured it. Or, maybe it eludes use all.

For more than a millennium philosopher have been discussion the essence of "truth" (what is it, what makes a truth true, and what does it mean) as its own entity. In the neo-classical theories in contemporary times (starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), How can it be that what the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian comprehends as truthful can be different from what the pro-Israeli accepts as true?

The fundamental to "truth" is held in what each recognizes as "true" if it corresponds to reality --- what actually agreed upon as "fact."

And this is the essence of the difference between what the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian comprehends as truthful in comparison to what the pro-Israeli accepts as true; and is directly applicable to this issue of "invasion."

§ Did the "Zionist Invade in Palestine?"
​

To determine the truth, we must know:

• What time period are we talking about?
• What is a Zionist?
• What and where is Palestine?
• What does "invade" mean? OR What is an invasion?
​

It might be worth looking at the Arab Invasions:

The First Islamic Empire. During the seventh century the Arabs invaded North Africa three times, bringing not just a new religion but a language and customs that were alien to the native Berber tribes of the Sahara and Mediterranean hinterland.

Huh,but the Zionist Invasion in Palestine was an abomination,funny how you omitted this

(COMMENT)

Let's examine the word "invasion." If the Key Word "invasion" is untrue, the entire statement is without merit.

View attachment 88318 View attachment 88316 View attachment 88315
​

Here, I've included three definitions (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary #1, the Vocabulary.com Dictionary #2 and the Definitions.net Dictionary #3) for the key word used: "Invasion." I used multiple sources to ensure the definitions were not "cherry-picked" to fit the response.

Dictionary #1 has the basis of "attack" -- "into Hostile Territory."
• The movement of Jewish People into the "Territory under the Mandate" was not an "attack" (facilitate Jewish immigration) and the territory was not hostile (Allied Powers have agreed to entrust to a Mandatory the administration of the territory of Palestine).

Dictionaries #2 and #3 have identified a common purpose: "Conquest and Plunder."

• To secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the:

• Reconstituting the Jewish national home.
• The development of self-governing institutions.
• Safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
​

Nowhere in the Palestine Order in Council or the Mandate for Palestine is the terms "Conquest" or "Plunder;" or the intention expressed (implicitly or explicitly).

The Allied Powers recognized a need for a Jewish Agency that could function as a public body for the PURPOSE of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine. The Allied Powers had appointed (1922 Article 4 Mandate) the "Zionist Organization" to fulfill this void. In 1929, the World Zionist Organization created the Jewish Agency to accomplish the Article 4 needs and to assist and encourage Jews worldwide to help develop and settle Israel.

THUS, there was no invasion. There was Applied Powers authorized immigration under the administration of the Mandatory. There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder.


Most Respectfully,
R​

There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder.​

There was, but not in the classical sense. Britain was the occupying power in Palestine from 1917 until the Treaty of Lausenne. Then Britain changed the name, but not the status, from occupier to Mandate. There was no visible invasion as Britain already had military control of the territory.

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew is forces leaving a handful of advisors behind. That was in line with the LoN Covenant.

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military force. This was evidence that they planned on pulling some shit that was affirmed by their actions over the next thirty years.

Over those thirty years, Britain allowed the Zionists to build their military. At the same time the British kept the Palestinians disarmed while arresting, exiling or killing their leadership.

When the Zionists attacked Palestine before the 1948 war there was no apparent invasion because their military was already in house.

WRONG there was no nation of palestine to invade until 1988, Britian did not change any names they went with the name given in 70AD as dictated by the LoN who ruled the mandate of palestine by proxy. First 3 islamonazi propaganda lies in the first sentence

WRONG when trans Jordan was created by the LoN Britain was given authority UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE LoN DECIDED THE TRANS JORDANIANS COULD SHOW THEMSELVES CAPABLE OF STANDING ON THEIR OWN. This was shown to be the case in 1923 and trans Jordan was allowed a free reign. Another lie based on islamonazi propaganda. Britain was never a mandate, but it was a mandatory, try looking at the difference .

When Britain was elected to be the mandatory ( again you confuse the issue with your claims of Britain being a mandate they weren't) they took on the role of government and ruled under the remit of the LoN. They did not take on the role unilaterally. There was no government in the 22% of palestine left after trans Jordan was created so the British had to take on the task of a government. From day one the arab muslims did everything they could to disrupt and force out the BRitish so they could take over by force of arms lands that were never theirs in the first place. Yes the anti semitism shown by the British administration in Jewish palestine shows that they did have an ulterior motive and it was only when the LoN folded in 1945 that they could start the mass murder of Jews trying to get to the mandate of palestine.

Read the above and look at the history for who the British administration sided with, then explain why only those arab muslim leaders involved in the murder of British subjects were arrested, exiled or executed for their crimes. The Jews built up their military so well that they were using single shot rifles while the arab muslims had modern semi automatics, tanks, planes and modern field artillery.

When and where did the zionists attack the mandate of palestine as I and millions of other interested people cant find any mention of any invasion other than that of the combined arab league forces in 1947. As for a zionist military they were armed with old stock British single shot rifles, shot guns, muzzle loading pistols and tractors. Against a British armed services led arab league multinational force armed with semi automatics, grenade launchers, multi shot hand guns, Tanks, Armoured cars and jet fighters.




ONCE AGAIN FACT AND REALITY DESTROYS YOUR ISLAMONAZI PROPGANDA AND NAZI ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED

 

[Phoenall]

...The handful of former Ottoman serfs and village and and desert dwellers who were on hand in 1948 and the ghoulash of migrants from diverse Arab regional tribes who flooded into the place for jobs in the first few decades of the 20th century, had their chance...

The UN relief agency responsible for gathering, feeding, housing, clothing and coddling those Arab "refugees" applied only the flimsiest of eligibility criteria and there is little to no reason to believe any who applied for "3 free hots and a cot" in that WW2 ravaged economy were turned away.

In other words, one need not have been a refugee of the Arab-Israel War of 1948 to sign up.

...Trouble for them, is that they (1) lacked the foresight and common sense that God gave a pissant, to do just that, (2) were gullible and stupid enough to believe their Arab neighbors when told that they should run and let their neighbors do their fighting for them, and (3) they snapped-up that offer in a heartbeat, and ran like the timid little rabbits that they were (and are)...

The Arabs certainly made their own bed and have since 1948 demanded a "do-over." Not gonna happen:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948–49

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States..." - The Arabs by Edward Atiyah, Secretary of the Arab League Office in London.

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, blah, blah, blah.​

Israel constantly pounds on this issue but it is really meaningless.

The reason people leave a conflict zone is irrelevant to the right to return. They could have just gone to Jordan for coffee and still have the right to return.

If it was meaningless you islamonazi propagandists would not try so hard to have it removed from the history books. And when did the right of return become enforcable under law as the arab muslims have vetoed its passing into international law due to the Jews ownership of Mecca and Medina.


Another islamonazi propaganda lie that you constantly push without showing when it became international law

 

[fanger]

Yet, being Of the jewish faith is the only criteria for being granted citizenship of the israeli entity currently occupying Palestine

 

[Kondor3]

Yet, being Of the jewish faith is the only criteria for being granted citizenship of the israeli entity currently occupying Palestine

Palestine?

As an autonomous state...

Doesn't exist...

Never has...

Never will...

The denizen-losers (Muslim-Arabs) of the two postage-stamp -sized slices of land that comprise Rump Palestine need to relocate.

They're in-the-way, and time is running out.

They'd be better off purchasing a slice of the Egyptian desert and trying to make a go of it there.

There's nothing for them - and absolutely no future - where they are now.

Take your families out of there now, while you still can.

Leave.

Live.

 

[SAYIT]

Yet, being Of the jewish faith is the only criteria for being granted citizenship of the israeli entity currently occupying Palestine

Thankfully there's a place for Jews - other than death camps and ovens - regardless of the demands of you goose-steppers.
So who better to decide Israel's immigration policies? You?

 

[Phoenall]

Yet, being Of the jewish faith is the only criteria for being granted citizenship of the israeli entity currently occupying Palestine

WRONG you are thinking of islam that only wants you to swear allegiance to satan and you can be a full blown child murdering rapist POS islamonazi scum.



By the way when did palestine become an arab muslim nation again, under what treaty ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arabs certainly made their own bed and have since 1948 demanded a "do-over." Not gonna happen:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948–49

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States..." - The Arabs by Edward Atiyah, Secretary of the Arab League Office in London.

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, blah, blah, blah. Israel constantly pounds on this issue but it is really meaningless. The reason people leave a conflict zone is irrelevant to the right to return. They could have just gone to Jordan for coffee and still have the right to return.

Conveniently "meaningless" to you but no country is required to resettle hostile "refugees" who may (or may not) have resided in that country at some previous time. As already mentioned, the UN relief agency had only minimal eligibility requirements and even they may have been ignored in the rush to sign up Arab "refugees" for 3-hots-&-a-cot. Hell, even Arafat was an Egyptian.

Instead of just blabbering on about Israel's BS talking points, how about a critique by an international law professor who actively works in that field?

 

[Hollie]

The Arabs certainly made their own bed and have since 1948 demanded a "do-over." Not gonna happen:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948–49

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States..." - The Arabs by Edward Atiyah, Secretary of the Arab League Office in London.

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, blah, blah, blah. Israel constantly pounds on this issue but it is really meaningless. The reason people leave a conflict zone is irrelevant to the right to return. They could have just gone to Jordan for coffee and still have the right to return.

Conveniently "meaningless" to you but no country is required to resettle hostile "refugees" who may (or may not) have resided in that country at some previous time. As already mentioned, the UN relief agency had only minimal eligibility requirements and even they may have been ignored in the rush to sign up Arab "refugees" for 3-hots-&-a-cot. Hell, even Arafat was an Egyptian.

Instead of just blabbering on about Israel's BS talking points, how about a critique by an international law professor who actively works in that field?

The above is the same canned, infomercial you have cut and pasted numerous times.

Without the benefit of an opportunity to have an opposing view being expressed or the opportunity to challenge the canned questions and prepared answers, what point is there in repeatedly cutting and pasting this infomercial? Does anyone get a free vegetable chopper for watching?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, tricky - tricky. You changed the context from a "Zoinist" invasion of Palestine, to an Allied Invasion of the Ottoman Empire.

There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder.

There was, but not in the classical sense. Britain was the occupying power in Palestine from 1917 until the Treaty of Lausenne. Then Britain changed the name, but not the status, from occupier to Mandate. There was no visible invasion as Britain already had military control of the territory.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was a Joint British and French Military Administration which was the first of the occupation phases established with headquarters in Jerusalem at the end of 1917
until the Civil Administration; with the surrender and demilitarization of all OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander. (Clause #16 Mudros Armistice) The OETA remained as the principle administration until the decisions made by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920. Shortly afterwards, on the 1st July, 1920, the OETA regime was replaced by a civil administration under a High Commission. (The Treaty of Lausanne ) The northern frontier of Palestine was determined in accordance with an Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its eastern frontier by virtue of the recognition, in 1923, of the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan (Article 25 of the 1922 Mandate).

Palestine was an undefined territory and not a Political Subdivision within the Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not invaded as a political sovereignty, but as a military engagement and movement to contact in pursuit of retreating Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces. Allied Forces where required to move forward and replace Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces that surrendered to the closest Allied Command pursuant to Clause 16 of the Mudros Armistice.

Again, it was the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that was invaded and not the undefined territory under the regional name of "Palestine."

The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the Allied Powers and Turkey; and went into force on 6 August 1924, on officially deposited in Paris. Great Britain was the last of the Principle Allied Powers to ratify the treaty on 16 July 1924.

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew is forces leaving a handful of advisors behind. That was in line with the LoN Covenant.

(COMMENT)

Jordan went through a series of steps.

In May 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. From that time forward, there had been a continuous prsence in Jordan of British Military Advisors until well after the 1949 Armistices; and even beyond..

This is not accurate at all. Even after the Treaty of Alliance (1946) His Majesty The King (UK) recognised Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. A further treaty with Britain was executed in March 1948, under which all restrictions on sovereignty were removed, although limited British base and transit rights in Transjordan continued, as did the British subsidy that paid for the Arab Legion.

I don't have the capacity for clairvoyance. But I would venture to say that the the Arab League left enough bread crumbs that even a blind man could determine that the Arabs would initiate a conflict should the Jewish National Home declare independence..

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military force. This was evidence that they planned on pulling some shit that was affirmed by their actions over the next thirty years.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is a stretch. Again, I'm not clairvoyant. In 1942, the Jewish Agency came under increased pressure for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East.

What 30 year period are we discussing?

Over those thirty years, Britain allowed the Zionists to build their military. At the same time the British kept the Palestinians disarmed while arresting, exiling or killing their leadership.

(COMMENT)

There was an arms embargo. What is this --- more whining?

When the Zionists attacked Palestine before the 1948 war there was no apparent invasion because their military was already in house.

(COMMENT)

The greater the intensity of attacks by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the more likely there will be an adverse response by the Jewish Community. Especially after WWII, there was a growing number of Holocaust Survivors as well as the Survivors of the purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, and so many atrocities ---

Following the Holocaust, two phrases stand out above all others as concrete universal Jewish resolutions. The first, "Zachor" (to remember), is to ensure that the past will never be forgotten and its memory will serve as a guide for the future. The second, "Never Again," is not limited to the horrors of a particular time or place, nor by extent or methods, but rather it symbolizes the Jewish People's collective resolve to never stand by the blood of ther brethren and to never allow innocents to be brutalized for the crime of being Jewish. SOURCE: "Never Again" Is Not Just a Slogan

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arabs certainly made their own bed and have since 1948 demanded a "do-over." Not gonna happen:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948–49

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States..." - The Arabs by Edward Atiyah, Secretary of the Arab League Office in London.

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, blah, blah, blah. Israel constantly pounds on this issue but it is really meaningless. The reason people leave a conflict zone is irrelevant to the right to return. They could have just gone to Jordan for coffee and still have the right to return.

Conveniently "meaningless" to you but no country is required to resettle hostile "refugees" who may (or may not) have resided in that country at some previous time. As already mentioned, the UN relief agency had only minimal eligibility requirements and even they may have been ignored in the rush to sign up Arab "refugees" for 3-hots-&-a-cot. Hell, even Arafat was an Egyptian.

Instead of just blabbering on about Israel's BS talking points, how about a critique by an international law professor who actively works in that field?

The above is the same canned, infomercial you have cut and pasted numerous times.

Without the benefit of an opportunity to have an opposing view being expressed or the opportunity to challenge the canned questions and prepared answers, what point is there in repeatedly cutting and pasting this infomercial? Does anyone get a free vegetable chopper for watching?

OK, but it is new to you because you have not seen it yet.

BTW, this is an open forum. You can post an opposing view any time.

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

Truly, is your home country not allowed to establish its own citizenship criteria.

Yet, being Of the jewish faith is the only criteria for being granted citizenship of the israeli entity currently occupying Palestine

(COMMENT)

And, how many of the Druze and Palestinians born in Israel hold Israeli citizenship?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, tricky - tricky. You changed the context from a "Zoinist" invasion of Palestine, to an Allied Invasion of the Ottoman Empire.

There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder.

There was, but not in the classical sense. Britain was the occupying power in Palestine from 1917 until the Treaty of Lausenne. Then Britain changed the name, but not the status, from occupier to Mandate. There was no visible invasion as Britain already had military control of the territory.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was a Joint British and French Military Administration which was the first of the occupation phases established with headquarters in Jerusalem at the end of 1917
until the Civil Administration; with the surrender and demilitarization of all OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander. (Clause #16 Mudros Armistice) The OETA remained as the principle administration until the decisions made by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920. Shortly afterwards, on the 1st July, 1920, the OETA regime was replaced by a civil administration under a High Commission. (The Treaty of Lausanne ) The northern frontier of Palestine was determined in accordance with an Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its eastern frontier by virtue of the recognition, in 1923, of the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan (Article 25 of the 1922 Mandate).

Palestine was an undefined territory and not a Political Subdivision within the Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not invaded as a political sovereignty, but as a military engagement and movement to contact in pursuit of retreating Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces. Allied Forces where required to move forward and replace Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces that surrendered to the closest Allied Command pursuant to Clause 16 of the Mudros Armistice.

Again, it was the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that was invaded and not the undefined territory under the regional name of "Palestine."

The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the Allied Powers and Turkey; and went into force on 6 August 1924, on officially deposited in Paris. Great Britain was the last of the Principle Allied Powers to ratify the treaty on 16 July 1924.

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew is forces leaving a handful of advisors behind. That was in line with the LoN Covenant.

(COMMENT)

Jordan went through a series of steps.

In May 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. From that time forward, there had been a continuous prsence in Jordan of British Military Advisors until well after the 1949 Armistices; and even beyond..

This is not accurate at all. Even after the Treaty of Alliance (1946) His Majesty The King (UK) recognised Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. A further treaty with Britain was executed in March 1948, under which all restrictions on sovereignty were removed, although limited British base and transit rights in Transjordan continued, as did the British subsidy that paid for the Arab Legion.

I don't have the capacity for clairvoyance. But I would venture to say that the the Arab League left enough bread crumbs that even a blind man could determine that the Arabs would initiate a conflict should the Jewish National Home declare independence..

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military force. This was evidence that they planned on pulling some shit that was affirmed by their actions over the next thirty years.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is a stretch. Again, I'm not clairvoyant. In 1942, the Jewish Agency came under increased pressure for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East.

What 30 year period are we discussing?

Over those thirty years, Britain allowed the Zionists to build their military. At the same time the British kept the Palestinians disarmed while arresting, exiling or killing their leadership.

(COMMENT)

There was an arms embargo. What is this --- more whining?

When the Zionists attacked Palestine before the 1948 war there was no apparent invasion because their military was already in house.

(COMMENT)

The greater the intensity of attacks by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the more likely there will be an adverse response by the Jewish Community. Especially after WWII, there was a growing number of Holocaust Survivors as well as the Survivors of the purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, and so many atrocities ---

Following the Holocaust, two phrases stand out above all others as concrete universal Jewish resolutions. The first, "Zachor" (to remember), is to ensure that the past will never be forgotten and its memory will serve as a guide for the future. The second, "Never Again," is not limited to the horrors of a particular time or place, nor by extent or methods, but rather it symbolizes the Jewish People's collective resolve to never stand by the blood of ther brethren and to never allow innocents to be brutalized for the crime of being Jewish. SOURCE: "Never Again" Is Not Just a Slogan

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so?

How does that relate to or change my post?

 

[Hollie]

The Arabs certainly made their own bed and have since 1948 demanded a "do-over." Not gonna happen:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948–49

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States..." - The Arabs by Edward Atiyah, Secretary of the Arab League Office in London.

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, blah, blah, blah. Israel constantly pounds on this issue but it is really meaningless. The reason people leave a conflict zone is irrelevant to the right to return. They could have just gone to Jordan for coffee and still have the right to return.

Conveniently "meaningless" to you but no country is required to resettle hostile "refugees" who may (or may not) have resided in that country at some previous time. As already mentioned, the UN relief agency had only minimal eligibility requirements and even they may have been ignored in the rush to sign up Arab "refugees" for 3-hots-&-a-cot. Hell, even Arafat was an Egyptian.

Instead of just blabbering on about Israel's BS talking points, how about a critique by an international law professor who actively works in that field?

The above is the same canned, infomercial you have cut and pasted numerous times.

Without the benefit of an opportunity to have an opposing view being expressed or the opportunity to challenge the canned questions and prepared answers, what point is there in repeatedly cutting and pasting this infomercial? Does anyone get a free vegetable chopper for watching?

OK, but it is new to you because you have not seen it yet.

BTW, this is an open forum. You can post an opposing view any time.

This is an open forum. Within this venue, comments are subject to critique and refutation unlike your YouTube video which was a canned infomercial.

There's an obvious reason why such YouTube informercials appeal to a narrow audience.