Methodist Church Considers HP Company Divestment

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

This is complete nonsense.

Hostilities were opened by the European Jews when they invaded Palestine with the intention to colonize and dispossess the native people. The Arab League intervened in an attempt to prevent the ongoing ethnic cleansing and killing of the native Muslims and Christians by the European colonists.

The European Jews, from the start intended to invade and colonize Palestine.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you may interpret the Jewish intentions to be, no matter what the Jewish stated intentions were, the fact is, the ability to achieve any intention was only made possible by the will of the Allied Powers.

While there may be evidence of Jewish immigration --- there is absolutely no evidence of a Jewish invasion that was not duly authorized and encouraged by the Allied Powers.

The perjurious implication and testimony given by the Arab Parties, is merely further evidence that the Arabs had no authority legally or practically ability to prevent the immigration, acceptance of citizenship, or the establishment of the Jewish National Home in the conduct of self-determination and the formation of sovereignty and independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is an even bigger crime the Allied Powers encouraged the colonization and dispossession of the native inhabitants. Contrary to the pledge they signed when they signed the Covenant of the League of Nations. The native inhabitants had every right, legal and natural, to resist colonization and dispossession. Native inhabitants anywhere have the right to resist the crime of colonization and dispossession.

And the Jews had every right, legal and natural, to kick out the muslim and Christian invaders of their lands then. Or do you propose to place Israel outside the law you say covers the arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

And, from someone who knew something about colonialism:

Like you he knows nothing, and like Mandela he favoured violence as a means to achieve his aims

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers did not advocate "dispossession of the native inhabitants." The civil right to own property was never in question. In fact, I don't thin it came up even once.

The issue had been (and still is) the insistence that the Arab Palestinian (under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration 1918-1920) had some special right to independence and sovereignty over a territory for which the full rights and title had been passed by the previous sovereignty to the Allied Powers; as was customary for the day.

It is an even bigger crime the Allied Powers encouraged the colonization and dispossession of the native inhabitants. Contrary to the pledge they signed when they signed the Covenant of the League of Nations. The native inhabitants had every right, legal and natural, to resist colonization and dispossession. Native inhabitants anywhere have the right to resist the crime of colonization and dispossession.

And, from someone who knew something about colonialism: [Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi]

Here again, we have to ask ourselves if the forced sovereignty and independence was in the best interest and "well-being" of the people.

"The first half of the twentieth century is an important period in the history of India, as a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organizations. Led by Mahatma Gandhi, and displaying commitment to ahimsa, or non-violence, millions of protesters engaged in mass campaigns of civil disobedience. Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but was partitioned, in accordance with the wishes of the Muslim League, along the lines of religion to create the Islamic nation-state of Pakistan. Three years later, on 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect. Unfortunately, Indian history since independence has been marked by poverty, corruption, and intermittent periods of chaos." This is very much the outcome that we see the State of Palestine headed.
​

It should be noted that, while the the State of Palestine ranked 113 on the 2015 Human Development Index, India ranked 130 (much lower). Can we say that it was in the best interest and well-being of the nation? Which, after all, is the Article 22 Standard. Of course if you are advocating for the State of Palestine to do as good as India, then you are pointing towards the right example.

BTW: There has not been an Arab Palestinian leader of the calibre (either before or since) of Mahatma Gandhi --- none!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, being able to cut'n'paste a section of text, does not mean that the text makes a certain promise ti any third party not subject to the Covenant and not a party to the Covenant,

1. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated clearly that the people "inhabiting" the former territories of the Central Powers were the subjects of the Article:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Stating otherwise is just silly.
​

(COMMENT)

If the Article 22 (mid-1919) was to be interpreted as requiring effect to be given to the "principle of self-determination leading to independence" --- then why did it not just say that. But it did not. Because the authors had something else in mind.

What amazes me is that the Arab Palestinian insists on implying that Article 22 makes some sort of promise to them, when it was not written to them. In fact, that was not the intent of either the Arab (not a party to the Covenant) or the Allied Powers (members of the Covenant). The Sharif of Mecca had a vision. Sharif Hussein, King of the Hejaz, undertook Great Arab Revolt to meet the objective to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Northern Syria) to Aden (Yemen and the Arabian Sea).

In mid-1916 (a century ago), coming three years before the Sykes-Picot Agreement (S-PA) (Asia Minor Agreement), a confidential agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, laid down the borders of the Middle East. The S-PA divided into new countries within two spheres of influence:

• The British Sphere: Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine under British control; and
• The French Sphere: Syria and Lebanon under French control.
​

At the time of the Balfour Declaration.while there were 10 times as many Christian and Muslim, as compared with 59,000 Jews --- the Arab Palestinian argument was based on the unlikely probability that small minority (Jews) could be given preferential treatment (over Christian and Muslim). It becomes much more understandable when viewed from the perspective that the Allied Powers --- which placed the landscape under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) --- and NOT under self-governing and autonomous administration. The British government, the following year and two years before the League of Nations Covenant, made clear its intention to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home. While the OETA and Civil Administration that followed, made reference to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish Christian and Muslim communities in Palestine, the focus was on the rights and political status to be enjoyed by Jewish immigration.

What would be "silly" (as you say) would have been if the Allied Powers established a clear intent and special concern for the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and then turn around and write Article 22 with an entirely different intent.

The confusing comes from the fact that the inhabitance, formerly under enemy occupation, began grasping at straws in order to project some undefined rights (CIVIL and RELIGIOUS of the first decade of the 1900s) and argue that these rights encompass sovereignty and independence. Totally (with the emphasis on "totally") alien concepts in the Arab Muslim world. [ --- (QUESTION) --- What Arab/Muslim countries, either before or since the Mandate period, fought for the cause other than the religious totalitarianism of the Islam (believe or suffer the consequences) and Muslim states ruled by Emirs, Princes, and Kings?]

2. The invasion of hostile Jews from Europe who came with the intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants, sponsored by Britain, which ignored its duty to apply the principle "well-being and development of such peoples" (the inhabitants) is the cause of the conflict.

(COMMENT)

You make the case for three principle ideas here.

• Invasion of hostile Jews from Europe.
• Intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants.
• Duty to apply the principle well-being and development of such peoples.
​

• The Allied Powers encouraged immigration. There was no invasion.
• The intent was to establish a Jewish National Home, and not "dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants."
• The principles well-being and development, this was actually achieved for any Christian or Muslim residence that remained with the sovereignty and independence of Israel.
​

On the matter of "well-being" and "human development."

The State of Israel is in the top 25 nations of the world, judged by the UN for their human development. No Arab League or Regional Government comes close to the level and ranking of Israel. The Human Development Index (HDI) is the yard stick by which any whiny Arab Palestinian can use to question Arab League (especially the Arab Palestinian) policy choices, asking how two countries compare their human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities and leadership abilities intended to achieve "well-being and development of such peoples." There is simply NO WAY that the Arab Palestinians can justify the continuous assault on Israel when it continually outstrips every single Arab League Nation (oil rich or not) in terms of "well-being and development." If there were even some Arab League nations that could compare, that would be arguable. BUT when ever single Arab League Nation falls behind Israel --- the Palestinians cannot argue that they were retarded by the Israeli Occupation. That simply cannot be true.

3. International law was violated when hostile European Jews made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine to conquer territory.

(COMMENT)

There is no point in the last 1000 years that any Jewish Nation has attacked any non-Jewish nation. Israel have been at war with elements of the Arab League since 1948. After establishing treaties Egypt and Jordan, Israel and Egypt/Jordan have ceased hostilities for decades. The same cannot be said for the countries of Lebanon and Syria. Even the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), who have consistently refused and rejected peace overtures, have deteriorated over time because they are opposed to peace.

BUT at no time in the last millennium can the HoAP claim any Jews (from anywhere) made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine. The Arab League opened hostilities in 1948, and have consistently refused to make peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ouch, that's going to hurt.

Hostilities were opened by the European Jews when they invaded Palestine with the intention to colonize and dispossess the native people. The Arab League intervened in an attempt to prevent the ongoing ethnic cleansing and killing of the native Muslims and Christians by the European colonists.

The European Jews, from the start intended to invade and colonize Palestine.

There it is, when all else fails, it's the standard bullshit European Jews response.

"There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today... No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough".

- Joseph Farah, "Myths of the Middle East" -

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, being able to cut'n'paste a section of text, does not mean that the text makes a certain promise ti any third party not subject to the Covenant and not a party to the Covenant,

1. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated clearly that the people "inhabiting" the former territories of the Central Powers were the subjects of the Article:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Stating otherwise is just silly.
​

(COMMENT)

If the Article 22 (mid-1919) was to be interpreted as requiring effect to be given to the "principle of self-determination leading to independence" --- then why did it not just say that. But it did not. Because the authors had something else in mind.

What amazes me is that the Arab Palestinian insists on implying that Article 22 makes some sort of promise to them, when it was not written to them. In fact, that was not the intent of either the Arab (not a party to the Covenant) or the Allied Powers (members of the Covenant). The Sharif of Mecca had a vision. Sharif Hussein, King of the Hejaz, undertook Great Arab Revolt to meet the objective to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Northern Syria) to Aden (Yemen and the Arabian Sea).

In mid-1916 (a century ago), coming three years before the Sykes-Picot Agreement (S-PA) (Asia Minor Agreement), a confidential agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, laid down the borders of the Middle East. The S-PA divided into new countries within two spheres of influence:

• The British Sphere: Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine under British control; and
• The French Sphere: Syria and Lebanon under French control.
​

At the time of the Balfour Declaration.while there were 10 times as many Christian and Muslim, as compared with 59,000 Jews --- the Arab Palestinian argument was based on the unlikely probability that small minority (Jews) could be given preferential treatment (over Christian and Muslim). It becomes much more understandable when viewed from the perspective that the Allied Powers --- which placed the landscape under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) --- and NOT under self-governing and autonomous administration. The British government, the following year and two years before the League of Nations Covenant, made clear its intention to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home. While the OETA and Civil Administration that followed, made reference to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish Christian and Muslim communities in Palestine, the focus was on the rights and political status to be enjoyed by Jewish immigration.

What would be "silly" (as you say) would have been if the Allied Powers established a clear intent and special concern for the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and then turn around and write Article 22 with an entirely different intent.

The confusing comes from the fact that the inhabitance, formerly under enemy occupation, began grasping at straws in order to project some undefined rights (CIVIL and RELIGIOUS of the first decade of the 1900s) and argue that these rights encompass sovereignty and independence. Totally (with the emphasis on "totally") alien concepts in the Arab Muslim world. [ --- (QUESTION) --- What Arab/Muslim countries, either before or since the Mandate period, fought for the cause other than the religious totalitarianism of the Islam (believe or suffer the consequences) and Muslim states ruled by Emirs, Princes, and Kings?]

2. The invasion of hostile Jews from Europe who came with the intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants, sponsored by Britain, which ignored its duty to apply the principle "well-being and development of such peoples" (the inhabitants) is the cause of the conflict.

(COMMENT)

You make the case for three principle ideas here.

• Invasion of hostile Jews from Europe.
• Intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants.
• Duty to apply the principle well-being and development of such peoples.
​

• The Allied Powers encouraged immigration. There was no invasion.
• The intent was to establish a Jewish National Home, and not "dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants."
• The principles well-being and development, this was actually achieved for any Christian or Muslim residence that remained with the sovereignty and independence of Israel.
​

On the matter of "well-being" and "human development."

The State of Israel is in the top 25 nations of the world, judged by the UN for their human development. No Arab League or Regional Government comes close to the level and ranking of Israel. The Human Development Index (HDI) is the yard stick by which any whiny Arab Palestinian can use to question Arab League (especially the Arab Palestinian) policy choices, asking how two countries compare their human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities and leadership abilities intended to achieve "well-being and development of such peoples." There is simply NO WAY that the Arab Palestinians can justify the continuous assault on Israel when it continually outstrips every single Arab League Nation (oil rich or not) in terms of "well-being and development." If there were even some Arab League nations that could compare, that would be arguable. BUT when ever single Arab League Nation falls behind Israel --- the Palestinians cannot argue that they were retarded by the Israeli Occupation. That simply cannot be true.

3. International law was violated when hostile European Jews made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine to conquer territory.

(COMMENT)

There is no point in the last 1000 years that any Jewish Nation has attacked any non-Jewish nation. Israel have been at war with elements of the Arab League since 1948. After establishing treaties Egypt and Jordan, Israel and Egypt/Jordan have ceased hostilities for decades. The same cannot be said for the countries of Lebanon and Syria. Even the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), who have consistently refused and rejected peace overtures, have deteriorated over time because they are opposed to peace.

BUT at no time in the last millennium can the HoAP claim any Jews (from anywhere) made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine. The Arab League opened hostilities in 1948, and have consistently refused to make peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ouch, that's going to hurt.

Hostilities were opened by the European Jews when they invaded Palestine with the intention to colonize and dispossess the native people. The Arab League intervened in an attempt to prevent the ongoing ethnic cleansing and killing of the native Muslims and Christians by the European colonists.

The European Jews, from the start intended to invade and colonize Palestine.

There it is, when all else fails, it's the standard bullshit European Jews response.

"There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today... No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough".

- Joseph Farah, "Myths of the Middle East" -

Ok, you can call the Palestinians "Martians". It doesn't change the fact that they were the inhabitants of the area defined as Palestine and the European Jews colonized and dispossessed them. Nothing else matters.

Gandhi stated clearly what I have been saying for years:

'THE JEWS', BY GANDHI - FROM HARIJAN, NOVEMBER 26, 1938

Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question.

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home......

And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in their favour in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-shares with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them.

I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."

Gandhi, The Jews And Palestine Jews', by Gandhi - From Harijan, November 26, 1938

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers did not advocate "dispossession of the native inhabitants." The civil right to own property was never in question. In fact, I don't thin it came up even once.

The issue had been (and still is) the insistence that the Arab Palestinian (under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration 1918-1920) had some special right to independence and sovereignty over a territory for which the full rights and title had been passed by the previous sovereignty to the Allied Powers; as was customary for the day.

It is an even bigger crime the Allied Powers encouraged the colonization and dispossession of the native inhabitants. Contrary to the pledge they signed when they signed the Covenant of the League of Nations. The native inhabitants had every right, legal and natural, to resist colonization and dispossession. Native inhabitants anywhere have the right to resist the crime of colonization and dispossession.

And, from someone who knew something about colonialism: [Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi]

Here again, we have to ask ourselves if the forced sovereignty and independence was in the best interest and "well-being" of the people.

"The first half of the twentieth century is an important period in the history of India, as a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organizations. Led by Mahatma Gandhi, and displaying commitment to ahimsa, or non-violence, millions of protesters engaged in mass campaigns of civil disobedience. Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but was partitioned, in accordance with the wishes of the Muslim League, along the lines of religion to create the Islamic nation-state of Pakistan. Three years later, on 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect. Unfortunately, Indian history since independence has been marked by poverty, corruption, and intermittent periods of chaos." This is very much the outcome that we see the State of Palestine headed.
​

It should be noted that, while the the State of Palestine ranked 113 on the 2015 Human Development Index, India ranked 130 (much lower). Can we say that it was in the best interest and well-being of the nation? Which, after all, is the Article 22 Standard. Of course if you are advocating for the State of Palestine to do as good as India, then you are pointing towards the right example.

BTW: There has not been an Arab Palestinian leader of the calibre (either before or since) of Mahatma Gandhi --- none!

Most Respectfully,
R

Gandhi expressed his views and they replicate mine.

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers did not advocate "dispossession of the native inhabitants." The civil right to own property was never in question. In fact, I don't thin it came up even once.

The issue had been (and still is) the insistence that the Arab Palestinian (under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration 1918-1920) had some special right to independence and sovereignty over a territory for which the full rights and title had been passed by the previous sovereignty to the Allied Powers; as was customary for the day.

It is an even bigger crime the Allied Powers encouraged the colonization and dispossession of the native inhabitants. Contrary to the pledge they signed when they signed the Covenant of the League of Nations. The native inhabitants had every right, legal and natural, to resist colonization and dispossession. Native inhabitants anywhere have the right to resist the crime of colonization and dispossession.

And, from someone who knew something about colonialism: [Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi]

Here again, we have to ask ourselves if the forced sovereignty and independence was in the best interest and "well-being" of the people.

"The first half of the twentieth century is an important period in the history of India, as a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organizations. Led by Mahatma Gandhi, and displaying commitment to ahimsa, or non-violence, millions of protesters engaged in mass campaigns of civil disobedience. Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but was partitioned, in accordance with the wishes of the Muslim League, along the lines of religion to create the Islamic nation-state of Pakistan. Three years later, on 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect. Unfortunately, Indian history since independence has been marked by poverty, corruption, and intermittent periods of chaos." This is very much the outcome that we see the State of Palestine headed.
​

It should be noted that, while the the State of Palestine ranked 113 on the 2015 Human Development Index, India ranked 130 (much lower). Can we say that it was in the best interest and well-being of the nation? Which, after all, is the Article 22 Standard. Of course if you are advocating for the State of Palestine to do as good as India, then you are pointing towards the right example.

BTW: There has not been an Arab Palestinian leader of the calibre (either before or since) of Mahatma Gandhi --- none!

Most Respectfully,
R

Gandhi expressed his views and they replicate mine.

Gandhi was as befuddled as you are regarding this mythical Pal'istan:
"I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country."

When did this mythical country of Pal'istan actually exist?

Umm. It didn't.

Thanks.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers did not advocate "dispossession of the native inhabitants." The civil right to own property was never in question. In fact, I don't thin it came up even once.

The issue had been (and still is) the insistence that the Arab Palestinian (under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration 1918-1920) had some special right to independence and sovereignty over a territory for which the full rights and title had been passed by the previous sovereignty to the Allied Powers; as was customary for the day.

It is an even bigger crime the Allied Powers encouraged the colonization and dispossession of the native inhabitants. Contrary to the pledge they signed when they signed the Covenant of the League of Nations. The native inhabitants had every right, legal and natural, to resist colonization and dispossession. Native inhabitants anywhere have the right to resist the crime of colonization and dispossession.

And, from someone who knew something about colonialism: [Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi]

Here again, we have to ask ourselves if the forced sovereignty and independence was in the best interest and "well-being" of the people.

"The first half of the twentieth century is an important period in the history of India, as a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organizations. Led by Mahatma Gandhi, and displaying commitment to ahimsa, or non-violence, millions of protesters engaged in mass campaigns of civil disobedience. Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but was partitioned, in accordance with the wishes of the Muslim League, along the lines of religion to create the Islamic nation-state of Pakistan. Three years later, on 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect. Unfortunately, Indian history since independence has been marked by poverty, corruption, and intermittent periods of chaos." This is very much the outcome that we see the State of Palestine headed.
​

It should be noted that, while the the State of Palestine ranked 113 on the 2015 Human Development Index, India ranked 130 (much lower). Can we say that it was in the best interest and well-being of the nation? Which, after all, is the Article 22 Standard. Of course if you are advocating for the State of Palestine to do as good as India, then you are pointing towards the right example.

BTW: There has not been an Arab Palestinian leader of the calibre (either before or since) of Mahatma Gandhi --- none!

Most Respectfully,
R

Gandhi expressed his views and they replicate mine.

Gandhi was as befuddled as you are regarding this mythical Pal'istan:
"I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country."

When did this mythical country of Pal'istan actually exist?

Umm. It didn't.

Thanks.

Doesn't need to be a country, just the territory where the inhabitants live. You can call it Pal'istan if you like although there's a place of the same name in Australia. It might befuddle you.

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers did not advocate "dispossession of the native inhabitants." The civil right to own property was never in question. In fact, I don't thin it came up even once.

The issue had been (and still is) the insistence that the Arab Palestinian (under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration 1918-1920) had some special right to independence and sovereignty over a territory for which the full rights and title had been passed by the previous sovereignty to the Allied Powers; as was customary for the day.

It is an even bigger crime the Allied Powers encouraged the colonization and dispossession of the native inhabitants. Contrary to the pledge they signed when they signed the Covenant of the League of Nations. The native inhabitants had every right, legal and natural, to resist colonization and dispossession. Native inhabitants anywhere have the right to resist the crime of colonization and dispossession.

And, from someone who knew something about colonialism: [Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi]

Here again, we have to ask ourselves if the forced sovereignty and independence was in the best interest and "well-being" of the people.

"The first half of the twentieth century is an important period in the history of India, as a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organizations. Led by Mahatma Gandhi, and displaying commitment to ahimsa, or non-violence, millions of protesters engaged in mass campaigns of civil disobedience. Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but was partitioned, in accordance with the wishes of the Muslim League, along the lines of religion to create the Islamic nation-state of Pakistan. Three years later, on 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect. Unfortunately, Indian history since independence has been marked by poverty, corruption, and intermittent periods of chaos." This is very much the outcome that we see the State of Palestine headed.
​

It should be noted that, while the the State of Palestine ranked 113 on the 2015 Human Development Index, India ranked 130 (much lower). Can we say that it was in the best interest and well-being of the nation? Which, after all, is the Article 22 Standard. Of course if you are advocating for the State of Palestine to do as good as India, then you are pointing towards the right example.

BTW: There has not been an Arab Palestinian leader of the calibre (either before or since) of Mahatma Gandhi --- none!

Most Respectfully,
R

Gandhi expressed his views and they replicate mine.

Gandhi was as befuddled as you are regarding this mythical Pal'istan:
"I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country."

When did this mythical country of Pal'istan actually exist?

Umm. It didn't.

Thanks.

actually, I prefer these quotes:

10 the Greatest Quotes About Israel and the Jews


1. Mark Twain: ”...If statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of stardust lost in the blaze of the Milky way. properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and had done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it.

The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"


2. John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations… They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews."

3. John F. Kennedy: Israel was not created in order to disappear- Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.


4. David Ben Gurion: "In Israel, in order to be a realist, you must believe in miracles."

5. Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe: “Energy is the basis of everything. Every Jew, no matter how insignificant, is engaged in some decisive and immediate pursuit of a goal… It is the most perpetual people of the earth…”


6. Winston S. Churchill: “Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and most remarkable race which has appeared in the world.


7. Leo Tolstoy: “What is the Jew?...What kind of unique creature is this whom all the rulers of all the nations of the world have disgraced and crushed and expelled and destroyed; persecuted, burned and drowned, and who, despite their anger and their fury, continues to live and to flourish. What is this Jew whom they have never succeeded in enticing with all the enticements in the world, whose oppressors and persecutors only suggested that he deny (and disown) his religion and cast aside the faithfulness of his ancestors?! The Jew - is the symbol of eternity. ... He is the one who for so long had guarded the prophetic message and transmitted it to all mankind. A people such as this can never disappear. The Jew is eternal. He is the embodiment of eternity.”


8. Benjamin Disraeli: "The view of Jerusalem is the history of the world; it is more, it is the history of earth and of heaven."


9. Elie Wiesel: I marvel at the resilience of the Jewish people. Their best characteristic is their desire to remember. No other people has such an obsession with memory.

10. Eric Hoffer: "The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it.Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world."

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers did not advocate "dispossession of the native inhabitants." The civil right to own property was never in question. In fact, I don't thin it came up even once.

The issue had been (and still is) the insistence that the Arab Palestinian (under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration 1918-1920) had some special right to independence and sovereignty over a territory for which the full rights and title had been passed by the previous sovereignty to the Allied Powers; as was customary for the day.

It is an even bigger crime the Allied Powers encouraged the colonization and dispossession of the native inhabitants. Contrary to the pledge they signed when they signed the Covenant of the League of Nations. The native inhabitants had every right, legal and natural, to resist colonization and dispossession. Native inhabitants anywhere have the right to resist the crime of colonization and dispossession.

And, from someone who knew something about colonialism: [Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi]

Here again, we have to ask ourselves if the forced sovereignty and independence was in the best interest and "well-being" of the people.

"The first half of the twentieth century is an important period in the history of India, as a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organizations. Led by Mahatma Gandhi, and displaying commitment to ahimsa, or non-violence, millions of protesters engaged in mass campaigns of civil disobedience. Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but was partitioned, in accordance with the wishes of the Muslim League, along the lines of religion to create the Islamic nation-state of Pakistan. Three years later, on 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect. Unfortunately, Indian history since independence has been marked by poverty, corruption, and intermittent periods of chaos." This is very much the outcome that we see the State of Palestine headed.
​

It should be noted that, while the the State of Palestine ranked 113 on the 2015 Human Development Index, India ranked 130 (much lower). Can we say that it was in the best interest and well-being of the nation? Which, after all, is the Article 22 Standard. Of course if you are advocating for the State of Palestine to do as good as India, then you are pointing towards the right example.

BTW: There has not been an Arab Palestinian leader of the calibre (either before or since) of Mahatma Gandhi --- none!

Most Respectfully,
R

Gandhi expressed his views and they replicate mine.

Gandhi was as befuddled as you are regarding this mythical Pal'istan:
"I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country."

When did this mythical country of Pal'istan actually exist?

Umm. It didn't.

Thanks.

Doesn't need to be a country, just the territory where the inhabitants live. You can call it Pal'istan if you like although there's a place of the same name in Australia. It might befuddle you.

So it's an invented name for an invented people.

No more questions, your honor.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah ... but again --- who's sovereignty was it.

Ok, you can call the Palestinians "Martians". It doesn't change the fact that they were the inhabitants of the area defined as Palestine and the European Jews colonized and dispossessed them. Nothing else matters.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what you call the "inhabitants." It was not their territory to assume. The Sovereign Power of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic pass the "rights and title" to the Allied Powers.

Gandhi did not benefit the Indian/Pakistani people; either in terms of well being or development. And those Arab Palestinians that want to continue the downward spiral of their peoples development, are not working in the best interest of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah ... but again --- who's sovereignty was it.

Ok, you can call the Palestinians "Martians". It doesn't change the fact that they were the inhabitants of the area defined as Palestine and the European Jews colonized and dispossessed them. Nothing else matters.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what you call the "inhabitants." It was not their territory to assume. The Sovereign Power of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic pass the "rights and title" to the Allied Powers.

Gandhi did not benefit the Indian/Pakistani people; either in terms of well being or development. And those Arab Palestinians that want to continue the downward spiral of their peoples development, are not working in the best interest of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course it was their territory. It was the inhabitants territory, pursuant to the agreement between the allies, i.e. the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22. The Allied Powers that elected to become Mandatories held it in trust for the inhabitants. It doesn't matter whether Gandhi did or did not benefit the Indian people or if the leaders of Palestine would have or would have not benefitted the inhabitants of Palestine. The point is, European colonists had no with to the territory.

 

[Roudy]

^^^^
So the only time it was possibly their territory (which it never was) was in the 20th century? Ha ha ha.

 

[montelatici]

^^^^
So the only time it was possibly their territory (which it never was) was in the 20th century? Ha ha ha.

The territory is of the inhabitants, no matter who the rulers are.

 

[Roudy]

^^^^
So the only time it was possibly their territory (which it never was) was in the 20th century? Ha ha ha.

The territory is of the inhabitants, no matter who the rulers are.

Then why did Muslims invade and shove their religion, language, history, and culture down the throats of the "inhabitants", everywhere they went?

Love how he comes up with his own rules, while admitting the so called Palestinians never had any sovereignty over the land.

The territory belings to those that conquer and then control and rule it. They as they please. And right now, the Jews are back in control and ruling their religious, ancestral, spiritual and cultural homeland. And that ain't gonna change ever again.

 

[montelatici]

^^^^
So the only time it was possibly their territory (which it never was) was in the 20th century? Ha ha ha.

The territory is of the inhabitants, no matter who the rulers are.

Then why did Muslims invade and shove their religion, language, history, and culture down the throats of the "inhabitants", everywhere they went?

Love how he comes up with his own rules, while admitting the so called Palestinians never had any sovereignty over the land.

The territory belings to those that conquer and then control and rule it. They as they please. And right now, the Jews are back in control and ruling their religious, ancestral, spiritual and cultural homeland. And that ain't gonna change ever again.

The Arabians invaded and ruled just as the Romans invaded the Crusaders invaded and the Turks invaded. Each left some language and culture. But the inhabitants remained the same inhabitants. The Jews will be expelled as rulers as the other foreign rulers have been. The demographics are what they are. That's just how it works. Palestine was the wrong place to try to rule. Too many non-Jews. And, the Muslims and Christians aren't going to convert to Judaism. A secular democratic state, not a Jewish state, for all the people is the only solution.

 

[Roudy]

^^^^
So the only time it was possibly their territory (which it never was) was in the 20th century? Ha ha ha.

The territory is of the inhabitants, no matter who the rulers are.

Then why did Muslims invade and shove their religion, language, history, and culture down the throats of the "inhabitants", everywhere they went?

Love how he comes up with his own rules, while admitting the so called Palestinians never had any sovereignty over the land.

The territory belings to those that conquer and then control and rule it. They as they please. And right now, the Jews are back in control and ruling their religious, ancestral, spiritual and cultural homeland. And that ain't gonna change ever again.

The Arabians invaded and ruled just as the Romans invaded the Crusaders invaded and the Turks invaded. Each left some language and culture. But the inhabitants remained the same inhabitants. The Jews will be expelled as rulers as the other foreign rulers have been. The demographics are what they are. That's just how it works. Palestine was the wrong place to try to rule. Too many non-Jews. And, the Muslims and Christians aren't going to convert to Judaism. A secular democratic state, not a Jewish state, for all the people is the only solution.

We already have a secular democratic state in Israel. Wake up. It's the Muslims that want to establish an Islamic Caliphate of Palestine, after they've killed all the Jews.

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Article One:
The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps.

Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Article Fifteen:
It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers did not advocate "dispossession of the native inhabitants." The civil right to own property was never in question. In fact, I don't thin it came up even once.

The issue had been (and still is) the insistence that the Arab Palestinian (under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration 1918-1920) had some special right to independence and sovereignty over a territory for which the full rights and title had been passed by the previous sovereignty to the Allied Powers; as was customary for the day.

It is an even bigger crime the Allied Powers encouraged the colonization and dispossession of the native inhabitants. Contrary to the pledge they signed when they signed the Covenant of the League of Nations. The native inhabitants had every right, legal and natural, to resist colonization and dispossession. Native inhabitants anywhere have the right to resist the crime of colonization and dispossession.

And, from someone who knew something about colonialism: [Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi]

Here again, we have to ask ourselves if the forced sovereignty and independence was in the best interest and "well-being" of the people.

"The first half of the twentieth century is an important period in the history of India, as a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and other political organizations. Led by Mahatma Gandhi, and displaying commitment to ahimsa, or non-violence, millions of protesters engaged in mass campaigns of civil disobedience. Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but was partitioned, in accordance with the wishes of the Muslim League, along the lines of religion to create the Islamic nation-state of Pakistan. Three years later, on 26 January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into effect. Unfortunately, Indian history since independence has been marked by poverty, corruption, and intermittent periods of chaos." This is very much the outcome that we see the State of Palestine headed.
​

It should be noted that, while the the State of Palestine ranked 113 on the 2015 Human Development Index, India ranked 130 (much lower). Can we say that it was in the best interest and well-being of the nation? Which, after all, is the Article 22 Standard. Of course if you are advocating for the State of Palestine to do as good as India, then you are pointing towards the right example.

BTW: There has not been an Arab Palestinian leader of the calibre (either before or since) of Mahatma Gandhi --- none!

Most Respectfully,
R

Gandhi expressed his views and they replicate mine.

Gandhi was as befuddled as you are regarding this mythical Pal'istan:
"I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country."

When did this mythical country of Pal'istan actually exist?

Umm. It didn't.

Thanks.

Doesn't need to be a country, just the territory where the inhabitants live. You can call it Pal'istan if you like although there's a place of the same name in Australia. It might befuddle you.

And the inhabitants were Jews as well so they had the right to declare independence didn't they. And then the right to close their nation to non Jews as the muslims closed theirs to non muslims.

 

[Phoenall]

^^^^
So the only time it was possibly their territory (which it never was) was in the 20th century? Ha ha ha.

The territory is of the inhabitants, no matter who the rulers are.

Then why did Muslims invade and shove their religion, language, history, and culture down the throats of the "inhabitants", everywhere they went?

Love how he comes up with his own rules, while admitting the so called Palestinians never had any sovereignty over the land.

The territory belings to those that conquer and then control and rule it. They as they please. And right now, the Jews are back in control and ruling their religious, ancestral, spiritual and cultural homeland. And that ain't gonna change ever again.

The Arabians invaded and ruled just as the Romans invaded the Crusaders invaded and the Turks invaded. Each left some language and culture. But the inhabitants remained the same inhabitants. The Jews will be expelled as rulers as the other foreign rulers have been. The demographics are what they are. That's just how it works. Palestine was the wrong place to try to rule. Too many non-Jews. And, the Muslims and Christians aren't going to convert to Judaism. A secular democratic state, not a Jewish state, for all the people is the only solution.

So you are saying that the muslims will one day have enough people to take on Israel, with 2 billion muslims is the world today when will there be enough to take on 6 million Israeli's ? At odds of 30 million to one in the muslims favour why haven't they ousted little Israel from its seat of power. Your constant cry of demographics shows that the muslims are cowards and that you have no intelligence. The muslims even have 4 times the nuclear capability of the Jews and still they keep losing

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah ... but again --- who's sovereignty was it.

Ok, you can call the Palestinians "Martians". It doesn't change the fact that they were the inhabitants of the area defined as Palestine and the European Jews colonized and dispossessed them. Nothing else matters.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what you call the "inhabitants." It was not their territory to assume. The Sovereign Power of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic pass the "rights and title" to the Allied Powers.

Gandhi did not benefit the Indian/Pakistani people; either in terms of well being or development. And those Arab Palestinians that want to continue the downward spiral of their peoples development, are not working in the best interest of the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

You need to understand that monte is applying his catholic church dogma to the conflict, and declaring that because the catholic's were there 2000 years ago the land is for ever theirs