Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The establishment of State of Israel as a Jewish National Home --- marks the beginning of an epoch in the protection and preservation of the people and heritage, the international culture, and ethno-religious character of the Jewish people from around the globe; unified by a some commonalities in their core beliefs.

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

(COMMENT)

The answer to this question (or debate) is much like query about whether it is more accurate to "half FULL" or "half EMPTY."

PALESTINE ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT (July 1937)(AKA: Peel Report)

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows : - .

” That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915 is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”
​

The objective was to establish a Jewish National Home --- and to do that you need people. And people requires immigration. That is why the immigration was facilitated. Of course, the more you immigrate the more resources are required, to include land.

If is rather foolish to try and isolate --- and address --- issues like this --- unless you are willing to to examine all the other circumstances that impact it and that it in turn impacts. During the period between 1920 and 1945, the immigration of Arabs and Jews was (roughy) parallel in overall numbers: Arab 401,149 and Jews 367,845. (See the Chart.)

Both the Arabs and the Jews were govern by the same basic criteria in attaining citizenship or immigration authority.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The establishment of State of Israel as a Jewish National Home --- marks the beginning of an epoch in the protection and preservation of the people and heritage, the international culture, and ethno-religious character of the Jewish people from around the globe; unified by a some commonalities in their core beliefs.

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

(COMMENT)

The answer to this question (or debate) is much like query about whether it is more accurate to "half FULL" or "half EMPTY."

PALESTINE ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT (July 1937)(AKA: Peel Report)

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows : - .

” That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915 is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”
​

The objective was to establish a Jewish National Home --- and to do that you need people. And people requires immigration. That is why the immigration was facilitated. Of course, the more you immigrate the more resources are required, to include land.

If is rather foolish to try and isolate --- and address --- issues like this --- unless you are willing to to examine all the other circumstances that impact it and that it in turn impacts. During the period between 1920 and 1945, the immigration of Arabs and Jews was (roughy) parallel in overall numbers: Arab 401,149 and Jews 367,845. (See the Chart.)

Both the Arabs and the Jews were govern by the same basic criteria in attaining citizenship or immigration authority.

Most Respectfully,
R​

That doesn't refute my post at all.

BTW, you have the wrong information on that immigration. Here is the chart.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I don't think you engage the little gray cells.

That doesn't refute my post at all.

BTW, you have the wrong information on that immigration. Here is the chart.

(COMMENT)

BTW, if you look at my post and your chart, the numbers are the same.

Your insinuation was that the issue was "immigration and Palestinian citizenship."

And, I wasn't really trying to refute your post, but to point out that the comparison of immigrants were very similar, from year to year. And if the issue was about immigration, then, it an issue of very little consequence. The Arab numbers for that period are actually slightly more that the Jewish numbers. THUS, the balance of immigration was a growth in Arabs not Jews. Virtually nothing to complain about.

And, since the rules for citizenship were exactly the same for Arab and Jewish immigrants, then that is a wash as well. Virtually all the Arab became Palestinians. For although the Citizenship Order (1925) gave the right to opt for Turkish or other nationalities (as appropriate) within two years. The number of Arabs who availed themselves of this option was negligible.

The virtual victim stance was so one-sided on the issues of Arab importance, as to be much to do about nothing.

The real issues had to do with the power, influence and money that the old Arab families would be losing under a government with a Jewish flavor to it.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I don't think you engage the little gray cells.

That doesn't refute my post at all.

BTW, you have the wrong information on that immigration. Here is the chart.

(COMMENT)

BTW, if you look at my post and your chart, the numbers are the same.

Your insinuation was that the issue was "immigration and Palestinian citizenship."

And, I wasn't really trying to refute your post, but to point out that the comparison of immigrants were very similar, from year to year. And if the issue was about immigration, then, it an issue of very little consequence. The Arab numbers for that period are actually slightly more that the Jewish numbers. THUS, the balance of immigration was a growth in Arabs not Jews. Virtually nothing to complain about.

And, since the rules for citizenship were exactly the same for Arab and Jewish immigrants, then that is a wash as well. Virtually all the Arab became Palestinians. For although the Citizenship Order (1925) gave the right to opt for Turkish or other nationalities (as appropriate) within two years. The number of Arabs who availed themselves of this option was negligible.

The virtual victim stance was so one-sided on the issues of Arab importance, as to be much to do about nothing.

The real issues had to do with the power, influence and money that the old Arab families would be losing under a government with a Jewish flavor to it.

Most Respectfully,
R

You need to take another look at that chart and rewrite your response.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

I see, I had the column reversed.

You need to take another look at that chart and rewrite your response.

(COMMENT)

Thanks

v/r/R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

I apologies. I see, I had the column reversed. I was using two different charts. I apologize.

You need to take another look at that chart and rewrite your response.

(COMMENT)

Thanks

I should have used the Demographic chart. I stand corrected. I made a mistake.

It would have been 630K to 1.181M End state population.

I've been making stupid mistakes all the last week.

v/r/
R

 

[Phoenall]

Who will give the holy land to the arab muslims then, as this would be a war crime, a crime against humanity and a breach of every Geneva convention.

What do you think jew got Israel by themselves. It was gift from WWII coalition to Jew because jew help coalition out in wwii against Germany.

30 years out as the LoN granted the land to the Jews under the mandate in 1923, the same mandate that granted Joprdan to the arab mislims.

You can not change the facts and figure and history. Instead, Please educate to jew that they are not especial race and masaya is not coming. And also teach them how to live with neighbors.

The LoN granted the land to the Jews as their NATIONal home in 1923, that is a historical fact that you illiterate muslims need to get into your brains. Your 13th imam is not coming and you wont force the world to become muslim either. You are dying on your feet in the west as more and more people want you out and returned to the hell holes you came from. Expect riots in the near future as more and more people see you islamonazi's for what you are

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

Is that why the area was partitioned into an arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. And why the LoN distinctly stated that they would bring about the Jewish NATIONal home. Your wishful thinking is not fact it is fantasy, and the treaties wording tells you that this is the case.

I am more literate that all you islamonazi morons put together, I can look for and read the authors explanations of what they meant by their words.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The establishment of State of Israel as a Jewish National Home --- marks the beginning of an epoch in the protection and preservation of the people and heritage, the international culture, and ethno-religious character of the Jewish people from around the globe; unified by a some commonalities in their core beliefs.

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

(COMMENT)

The answer to this question (or debate) is much like query about whether it is more accurate to "half FULL" or "half EMPTY."

PALESTINE ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT (July 1937)(AKA: Peel Report)

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows : - .

” That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915 is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”
​

The objective was to establish a Jewish National Home --- and to do that you need people. And people requires immigration. That is why the immigration was facilitated. Of course, the more you immigrate the more resources are required, to include land.

If is rather foolish to try and isolate --- and address --- issues like this --- unless you are willing to to examine all the other circumstances that impact it and that it in turn impacts. During the period between 1920 and 1945, the immigration of Arabs and Jews was (roughy) parallel in overall numbers: Arab 401,149 and Jews 367,845. (See the Chart.)

Both the Arabs and the Jews were govern by the same basic criteria in attaining citizenship or immigration authority.

Most Respectfully,
R​

That doesn't refute my post at all.

BTW, you have the wrong information on that immigration. Here is the chart.

So you are using monte's link that was published by committee that were anti Jew at the time. He tried to say that the numbers of illegal immigrants were known because so many were caught by the British.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The establishment of State of Israel as a Jewish National Home --- marks the beginning of an epoch in the protection and preservation of the people and heritage, the international culture, and ethno-religious character of the Jewish people from around the globe; unified by a some commonalities in their core beliefs.

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

(COMMENT)

The answer to this question (or debate) is much like query about whether it is more accurate to "half FULL" or "half EMPTY."

PALESTINE ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT (July 1937)(AKA: Peel Report)

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows : - .

” That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915 is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”
​

The objective was to establish a Jewish National Home --- and to do that you need people. And people requires immigration. That is why the immigration was facilitated. Of course, the more you immigrate the more resources are required, to include land.

If is rather foolish to try and isolate --- and address --- issues like this --- unless you are willing to to examine all the other circumstances that impact it and that it in turn impacts. During the period between 1920 and 1945, the immigration of Arabs and Jews was (roughy) parallel in overall numbers: Arab 401,149 and Jews 367,845. (See the Chart.)

Both the Arabs and the Jews were govern by the same basic criteria in attaining citizenship or immigration authority.

Most Respectfully,
R​

That doesn't refute my post at all.

BTW, you have the wrong information on that immigration. Here is the chart.

So you are using monte's link that was published by committee that were anti Jew at the time. He tried to say that the numbers of illegal immigrants were known because so many were caught by the British.

That is from Rocco's link.

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Again, an improper analogy!

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1939 Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, nothing was left of pre-1939 Poland but that did not mean that the Polish people reliquished their sovereignty over the Polish territory that existed before September 1939. Poles remained Poles and Palestinians still remained Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Polish were sovereign and independent people prior to the invasion. While it is true that (from 1795 until 1918) no truly independent Polish state existed, prior to the end of WWI, from 1918 until the Nazi and Russian takeover in 1939, the Second Polish Republic, was a sovereign power over Poland. Much different a history than the Arab Palestinians.

The Arab Palestinians have not been sovereign or independent for nearly a 1000 years; not until 1988. Prior to the surrender (1918 Armistice of Mudros) of the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers, what is today called the Arab Palestinian, was (in fact) Arab Ottomans.

In 1914 what became known as the Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, there was to the East of the Jordan River, in the Vilayet (Province) of Syria, the three Sanjaks (administrative divisions/districts) of Damascus, Hauran and Maan which were either in whole or in part included. Similarly, there was to the West of the Jordan River, in the Vilayet of Beirut, the three Sanjaks of Berirut, Acre, and Balqa. Additionally, and because of its religious significance, was the administratively separate Sanjak of Jerusalem; which reported directly to the Vilayet Government of Syria. Damascus was both the Beylerbeylik (governor-generalship/provincial seat) and a Sanjak locally. BUT their was no administrative subdivision in the Ottoman Empire known as "Palestine." Nor was it a legal entity. It was a ancient name for a regional area that had no particular boundary.

Most Respectfully,
R

The analogy was quite correct and thank you for pointing out the fact that Poland had been partitioned several times and reduced to mere provinces (vilayets, sanjaks, etc) and despite the various attempts of all three empires to "assimilate" Poles as Russians Austrians or Prussians, the people maintained their culture and thirst for independance (self determination), evidenced by several popular uprisings or "intifadas".

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al

Just like the various Arab states that went through a period called the "Arab Spring;" so it was in Europe with several countries.

The analogy was quite correct and thank you for pointing out the fact that Poland had been partitioned several times and reduced to mere provinces (vilayets, sanjaks, etc) and despite the various attempts of all three empires to "assimilate" Poles as Russians Austrians or Prussians, the people maintained their culture and thirst for independance (self determination), evidenced by several popular uprisings or "intifadas".

(COMMENT)

It was not, necessarily as you say a "thirst for independence (self determination)," although that is certainly a major component in some cases. There was not just one reason for the dissolution of the Russian Empire, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the role that nationalism of Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal) played in the decline of the Ottoman Empire, --- and the forced abdication of the Kaiser which reduced the German Empire. It was fairly remarkable that in the wake of WWI it became possible for Germany to rise with Weimar Republic, Ottoman with the Turkish Republic --- with the return of most autonomy to most of the former satellite states and regions, and Russia with the Bolsheviks reclaiming most of the ex-Tsarist Empire and founding the Soviet Union. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, which included most of central Europe, exploded in to present day Austria and Hungary as well as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia and parts of present Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro.

THE END of WWI brought with it the introduction of the great experiment in the Mandate System.

The Class C mandates, former German possessions in South West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.

The Class B mandates were all in Africa:

• The Belgium holdings in Ruanda-Urundi (German East Africa );
• The British holdings in Tanganyika (a Partition of British East Africa);
• The British Resident Supervision of Cameroons (partition from Kamerun -- German West African Colony);
• The holding under the French Commissioner in Cameroun (partition from Kamerun -- German West African Colony);
• The British and French holdings in Togo and Ghana (formerly German Protectorate in West Africa);
​

The Class A mandates were all territories below the southern frontier of Turkey:

• Palestine (which would come to include Transjordan),
• Syria (which would come to include Lebanon), and
• Mesopotamia.
​

(THE POINT)

While the Ottoman Empire was not the only Empire to have portions of it brought under Mandate, Poland was different in that it was immediately recognized as a nation that could stand on its own. The Mandate over Palestine was not the only territory to be partitioned; it was just the only country to throw a temper tantrum for more than half a century and still unable to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Rehmani]

What do you think jew got Israel by themselves. It was gift from WWII coalition to Jew because jew help coalition out in wwii against Germany.

30 years out as the LoN granted the land to the Jews under the mandate in 1923, the same mandate that granted Joprdan to the arab mislims.

You can not change the facts and figure and history. Instead, Please educate to jew that they are not especial race and masaya is not coming. And also teach them how to live with neighbors.

The LoN granted the land to the Jews as their NATIONal home in 1923, that is a historical fact that you illiterate muslims need to get into your brains. Your 13th imam is not coming and you wont force the world to become muslim either. You are dying on your feet in the west as more and more people want you out and returned to the hell holes you came from. Expect riots in the near future as more and more people see you islamonazi's for what you are

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

Is that why the area was partitioned into an arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. And why the LoN distinctly stated that they would bring about the Jewish NATIONal home. Your wishful thinking is not fact it is fantasy, and the treaties wording tells you that this is the case.

I am more literate that all you islamonazi morons put together, I can look for and read the authors explanations of what they meant by their words.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

 

[RoccoR]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al

Just like the various Arab states that went through a period called the "Arab Spring;" so it was in Europe with several countries.

The analogy was quite correct and thank you for pointing out the fact that Poland had been partitioned several times and reduced to mere provinces (vilayets, sanjaks, etc) and despite the various attempts of all three empires to "assimilate" Poles as Russians Austrians or Prussians, the people maintained their culture and thirst for independance (self determination), evidenced by several popular uprisings or "intifadas".

(COMMENT)

It was not, necessarily as you say a "thirst for independence (self determination)," although that is certainly a major component in some cases. There was not just one reason for the dissolution of the Russian Empire, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the role that nationalism of Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal) played in the decline of the Ottoman Empire, --- and the forced abdication of the Kaiser which reduced the German Empire. It was fairly remarkable that in the wake of WWI it became possible for Germany to rise with Weimar Republic, Ottoman with the Turkish Republic --- with the return of most autonomy to most of the former satellite states and regions, and Russia with the Bolsheviks reclaiming most of the ex-Tsarist Empire and founding the Soviet Union. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, which included most of central Europe, exploded in to present day Austria and Hungary as well as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia and parts of present Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro.

THE END of WWI brought with it the introduction of the great experiment in the Mandate System.

The Class C mandates, former German possessions in South West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.

The Class B mandates were all in Africa:

• The Belgium holdings in Ruanda-Urundi (German East Africa );
• The British holdings in Tanganyika (a Partition of British East Africa);
• The British Resident Supervision of Cameroons (partition from Kamerun -- German West African Colony);
• The holding under the French Commissioner in Cameroun (partition from Kamerun -- German West African Colony);
• The British and French holdings in Togo and Ghana (formerly German Protectorate in West Africa);
​

The Class A mandates were all territories below the southern frontier of Turkey:

• Palestine (which would come to include Transjordan),
• Syria (which would come to include Lebanon), and
• Mesopotamia.
​

(THE POINT)

While the Ottoman Empire was not the only Empire to have portions of it brought under Mandate, Poland was different in that it was immediately recognized as a nation that could stand on its own. The Mandate over Palestine was not the only territory to be partitioned; it was just the only country to throw a temper tantrum for more than half a century and still unable to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you, I'm well aware of the history of post WW1Europe and the newly constituted Poland was not immediately recognised or accepted by the other powers, not least of which the Soviet Union (Russo-Polish war 1919-1921 ring any bells?)

Palestine was the only country colonised by a European politico-religious cult against the soveriegn will of the majority of the people of Palestine, is it any wonder they threw a "temper tantrum" as you so patronisingly put it? Syria also threw a "temper tantrum" as did Iraq when a foreign or native minority group was imposed on their majority population as rulers.

 

[Challenger]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

 

[montelatici]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

1. The definition of invasion:

"Definition: An unarmed military campaign across national boundaries, with a comparatively long-range objective or duration, in restraint of flagrant injustice, oppression, invasion, or genocide."

2. An invasion of people, from a region to another region, who intend to remove the existing inhabitants of the other region through ethnic cleansing and/or genocide is a crime, hence illegal. Note: The Zionist and subsequently "Transfer Committee" headed by Yosef Weitz were clear on the goal of ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Note: the link above does work.

 

[MJB12741]

30 years out as the LoN granted the land to the Jews under the mandate in 1923, the same mandate that granted Joprdan to the arab mislims.

You can not change the facts and figure and history. Instead, Please educate to jew that they are not especial race and masaya is not coming. And also teach them how to live with neighbors.

The LoN granted the land to the Jews as their NATIONal home in 1923, that is a historical fact that you illiterate muslims need to get into your brains. Your 13th imam is not coming and you wont force the world to become muslim either. You are dying on your feet in the west as more and more people want you out and returned to the hell holes you came from. Expect riots in the near future as more and more people see you islamonazi's for what you are

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

Is that why the area was partitioned into an arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. And why the LoN distinctly stated that they would bring about the Jewish NATIONal home. Your wishful thinking is not fact it is fantasy, and the treaties wording tells you that this is the case.

I am more literate that all you islamonazi morons put together, I can look for and read the authors explanations of what they meant by their words.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

"Illegal invasion by Jews"? Well lets see now. Which came first, Solomon's Temple, or the Al Aqsa Mosque?

 

[Phoenall]

30 years out as the LoN granted the land to the Jews under the mandate in 1923, the same mandate that granted Joprdan to the arab mislims.

You can not change the facts and figure and history. Instead, Please educate to jew that they are not especial race and masaya is not coming. And also teach them how to live with neighbors.

The LoN granted the land to the Jews as their NATIONal home in 1923, that is a historical fact that you illiterate muslims need to get into your brains. Your 13th imam is not coming and you wont force the world to become muslim either. You are dying on your feet in the west as more and more people want you out and returned to the hell holes you came from. Expect riots in the near future as more and more people see you islamonazi's for what you are

You are the one who is illiterate. The National Home was not about land. It was immigration and Palestinian citizenship.

Is that why the area was partitioned into an arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. And why the LoN distinctly stated that they would bring about the Jewish NATIONal home. Your wishful thinking is not fact it is fantasy, and the treaties wording tells you that this is the case.

I am more literate that all you islamonazi morons put together, I can look for and read the authors explanations of what they meant by their words.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

What illegal invasion was that then as the Jews were invited by the legal sovereign land owners to migrate and close settle the land. It is you that supports the illegal arab muslim invasions from the 1870's to the present day

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al

Just like the various Arab states that went through a period called the "Arab Spring;" so it was in Europe with several countries.

The analogy was quite correct and thank you for pointing out the fact that Poland had been partitioned several times and reduced to mere provinces (vilayets, sanjaks, etc) and despite the various attempts of all three empires to "assimilate" Poles as Russians Austrians or Prussians, the people maintained their culture and thirst for independance (self determination), evidenced by several popular uprisings or "intifadas".

(COMMENT)

It was not, necessarily as you say a "thirst for independence (self determination)," although that is certainly a major component in some cases. There was not just one reason for the dissolution of the Russian Empire, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the role that nationalism of Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal) played in the decline of the Ottoman Empire, --- and the forced abdication of the Kaiser which reduced the German Empire. It was fairly remarkable that in the wake of WWI it became possible for Germany to rise with Weimar Republic, Ottoman with the Turkish Republic --- with the return of most autonomy to most of the former satellite states and regions, and Russia with the Bolsheviks reclaiming most of the ex-Tsarist Empire and founding the Soviet Union. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, which included most of central Europe, exploded in to present day Austria and Hungary as well as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia and parts of present Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro.

THE END of WWI brought with it the introduction of the great experiment in the Mandate System.

The Class C mandates, former German possessions in South West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.

The Class B mandates were all in Africa:

• The Belgium holdings in Ruanda-Urundi (German East Africa );
• The British holdings in Tanganyika (a Partition of British East Africa);
• The British Resident Supervision of Cameroons (partition from Kamerun -- German West African Colony);
• The holding under the French Commissioner in Cameroun (partition from Kamerun -- German West African Colony);
• The British and French holdings in Togo and Ghana (formerly German Protectorate in West Africa);
​

The Class A mandates were all territories below the southern frontier of Turkey:

• Palestine (which would come to include Transjordan),
• Syria (which would come to include Lebanon), and
• Mesopotamia.
​

(THE POINT)

While the Ottoman Empire was not the only Empire to have portions of it brought under Mandate, Poland was different in that it was immediately recognized as a nation that could stand on its own. The Mandate over Palestine was not the only territory to be partitioned; it was just the only country to throw a temper tantrum for more than half a century and still unable to stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you, I'm well aware of the history of post WW1Europe and the newly constituted Poland was not immediately recognised or accepted by the other powers, not least of which the Soviet Union (Russo-Polish war 1919-1921 ring any bells?)

Palestine was the only country colonised by a European politico-religious cult against the soveriegn will of the majority of the people of Palestine, is it any wonder they threw a "temper tantrum" as you so patronisingly put it? Syria also threw a "temper tantrum" as did Iraq when a foreign or native minority group was imposed on their majority population as rulers.

When did Palestine become a country then, for it to be colonised by a European politico-religious cult. What sovereign people lived in this mythical nation that never existed, seeing as it passed from Ottoman sovereignty to LoN sovereignty when it was partitioned into separate nations. The arab muslims were allocated 78% of the land as their national home and still wanted more.

When did Syria and Iraq throw these alleged temper tantrums then, a link would be nice so we can pick its bones clean and prove you wrong

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them