RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, yes!
If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:
That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.
Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This is a matter of accent; not shopping for answers.
Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.
In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attacked, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.
Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jewish People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.
For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, yes!
If you want to apply that passage, you must remember the words and thought of the Allied Powers:
"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"
the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"
That is the "descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region" that you should be looking for in the context of the original intent of the Allied Powers pertaining to the territory to which Turkey renounced all rights and title; the land the Ottoman Empire surrendered when it gave-up of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander.
(COMMENT)It also said:
...they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.
Of course this conquest was not illegal back in the day of the conquest of the US, Australia, etc.. It was illegal, however, when the Zionists conquered Palestine by military force in 1948.
The foreign Zionists did not fit the above description of indigenous people at all. They did not know the language or culture. They had no connection to the land. They had never been there. There was no ancestral connection.
The Zionist's stated goal from the beginning was to colonize, conquer, and occupy Palestine. To call that a "defensive" position is a serious load of crap.
Yes: conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. This is a matter of accent; not shopping for answers.
Your idea of "ancestral connection" and my idea of "ancestral connection" are vastly different. Anyone who ignores the historical connection between Jewish People and the lands between the seas is simply not yet ready to examine the reality of the issue.
In terms of the 1948 "conquest," the Israelis were attacked and assumed the necessary defensive posture and organized a counteroffensive against the various hostile forces assembled by the Arab League. The Arab attacked, and are repulsed by the heavily outnumbered Jewish defenders, --- then cry foul because they wound-up in a inferior military position.
Not all Jewish People are "Zionist." Not all "Zionist" are extremists. To be honest, I know very little about the Jewish People in terms of their religion and stance. Over the years, I served with several; but my Sicilian cultural family manners usually prevailed and the subject of religion generally seldom developed. I've heard Jewish People describe themselves as "orthodox" and "ultra-orthodox." I've heard them say things like "they are more traditional or less traditional;" more non-observant or less observant. There are Jews who may not be Orthodox, yet are opposed to the further expansion of Israeli territorial control; that recommend withdrawal from the West Bank (Gaza having already been abandon). I have met some that are outright sympathetic with the anti-Zionist cause (which has a greater meaning to them than me; because they have the greater understanding). Do I find any of this unusual? NO! It is all a matter of diversity and the distributive factor that effect cultural change. At the end of the day, the Israelis will have to sort through the problems and resolve the situation themselves. All that we can do as allies and friends, is to support them and ease what we can of the burden.
For the Hostile Arab Palestinian? While my manners will prevail --- I doubt that I would go out of my way to assist those that have supported the pretenders to peace and freedom like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB), Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades (IAQB), Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)/General Command (PFLP-GC). There is nothing that these activities do that either helps their people or promotes economic and cultural growth; involved too much in training the next general of terrorists.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited: