Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

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.

You can pull out passages that you do not agree with noted by the time on the video. Or you can post a video rebuttal.

You don't have to just whine about my video.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

More BS Israeli talking points.

The rights of a people do not require statehood.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You can pull out passages that you do not agree with noted by the time on the video. Or you can post a video rebuttal.

You don't have to just whine about my video.

On the contrary, why don't you provide an account of the important elements within the infomercial, their legal precedence and applicability to the current situation.

I'll leave refuting a YouTube informercial to others.

 

[Hollie]

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.

More BS Israeli talking points.

The rights of a people do not require statehood.

That's more excuses for Islamist ineptitude and incompetence.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination within the context of establishing an independent state. Arabs-Moslems could not muster the ability to do so and have instead chosen to scratch out a comfortable existence begging at the hand of a dedicated UN welfare agency.

 

[Kondor3]

...More BS Israeli talking points. The rights of a people do not require statehood.

In terms of national identity and relevant rights...

Rights are useless without the will and capacity to both claim and enforce those rights...

Yur Neanderthals have neither the will nor the capacity.

And it's far too late for your chickenshit Palestinians to pretend to grow a pair now.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

More BS Israeli talking points.

The rights of a people do not require statehood.

That's more excuses for Islamist ineptitude and incompetence.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination within the context of establishing an independent state. Arabs-Moslems could not muster the ability to do so and have instead chosen to scratch out a comfortable existence begging at the hand of a dedicated UN welfare agency.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

 

[Shusha]

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

They are inalienable human rights belonging to everyone, remember? That is what YOU keep preaching. The rights belong to the "people of the place". They belong to all those who were citizens in August of 1923.

These are YOUR arguments.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

She is not she is just a mouthpiecve for islaminazi propaganda

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?

Did you read the description that is based on islamonazi lies and blood libels. How are they stateless when they have their own nation that they refuse to allow to proceed to full independence ?


Just more of your biased islamonazi LIES

 

[Phoenall]

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.

I have seen it on here many times, or something very similar using the same words and libels without any constructive unbiased evidence to support the narrative. Just repeated islamonazi propaganda and lies

 

[Phoenall]

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?

It shows it to be your usual pack of islamonazi lies and propaganda

 

[Phoenall]

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?

It shows it to be your usual pack of islamonazi lies and propaganda

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.

More BS Israeli talking points.

The rights of a people do not require statehood.

That's more excuses for Islamist ineptitude and incompetence.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination within the context of establishing an independent state. Arabs-Moslems could not muster the ability to do so and have instead chosen to scratch out a comfortable existence begging at the hand of a dedicated UN welfare agency.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

Yes they did under the LoN Mandate of palestine and the UN charter along with many international laws of the time.

Why should we give you a link when you refuse to produce any links to support your thousands of claims ?

 

[Phoenall]

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

They are inalienable human rights belonging to everyone, remember? That is what YOU keep preaching. The rights belong to the "people of the place". They belong to all those who were citizens in August of 1923.

These are YOUR arguments.

And once again he is denying those rights to the Jews with more right to the land than the illegal immigrant arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

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.

You can pull out passages that you do not agree with noted by the time on the video. Or you can post a video rebuttal.

You don't have to just whine about my video.

Or we can put our own spin on it and point to the LIES told that have been destroyed over time by truth and reality. The fact that she is a muslim straight away means her video is biased.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

More BS Israeli talking points.

The rights of a people do not require statehood.

WRONG unless you want to be told all you have is islamonazi talking points based on LIES and BLOOD LIBELS.

Now explain again how an illegal immigrant from Syria has more rights than a Jew granted the right to migrate and given citizenship ?

 

[Hollie]

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.

More BS Israeli talking points.

The rights of a people do not require statehood.

That's more excuses for Islamist ineptitude and incompetence.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination within the context of establishing an independent state. Arabs-Moslems could not muster the ability to do so and have instead chosen to scratch out a comfortable existence begging at the hand of a dedicated UN welfare agency.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

Actually, yes. The circumstances surrounding that right of self determination has been addressed for you multiple times.

 

[Kondor3]

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

They are inalienable human rights belonging to everyone, remember? That is what YOU keep preaching. The rights belong to the "people of the place". They belong to all those who were citizens in August of 1923.

These are YOUR arguments.

Or August of 70 C.E.

 

[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.

More BS Israeli talking points.

The rights of a people do not require statehood.

That's more excuses for Islamist ineptitude and incompetence.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination within the context of establishing an independent state. Arabs-Moslems could not muster the ability to do so and have instead chosen to scratch out a comfortable existence begging at the hand of a dedicated UN welfare agency.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

Actually, yes. The circumstances surrounding that right of self determination has been addressed for you multiple times.

Tinny is a One Trick Pony.

You can serve-up such arguments until you're blue in the face, and, because it's not the answer HE (and his kind) wants to hear, he'll nip at your heels forever, if you let him.

In the end, there is no talking-to nor reasoning-with such people.

That's why the Israelis stopped talking to them, and started bombing the shit out of them, years ago.

Using the only language - sheer force - that these Neanderthals truly understand.

Useful Idiots like our friend here merely prolong the agony for the so-called Palestinians, who have lost, decisively, and permanently.

It's over.

One of these days, the rank-and-file in Gaza and the West Bank will reach the conclusion that they've been hoodwinked into staying in-place decades longer than advisable.

Had the so-called 'Palestinians' of 1948 simply picked-up and left, 70 years ago, once they had lost, or after any of several stunning Israeli victories over an overwhelming Muslim-Arab assault, their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren would now be laughing and playing in peaceful, safe places, and enjoying life; life with a future.

Time for the Palestinians to go - to pack up and leave a land no longer theirs (if it ever was) - to give the next generation the chance that this one, and the one before it, never gave themselves, because they listened to liars and zealots and fools - murderous, bloodthirsty, bad men.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

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?

It shows it to be your usual pack of islamonazi lies and propaganda

IOW, you have nothing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.​

It is not all people. It is all peoples. Why are you changing who has rights?