Methodist Church Considers HP Company Divestment

[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

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.

So when did Arafat the Egyptian acquire his rights to the territory then, or the Saudi deserters that invaded in 1947, 1967 and 1973. The vast majority of so called Palestinians by their own confessions are illegal immigrants. The covenant is for the LoN not for the inhabitants of the lands. And if you read the covenant and the mandates you see that in the case of Palestine it applies to the Jews and Jordan

 

[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.

So it is now Jewish as they are the inhabitants now, ISNT THAT SO ?

 

[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.

Read the history books again as with each conquest the lands were seeded with the victors people, who ruled the inhabitants. These people interbred with the locals producing future generations of rulers, and those able to inflict their needs. So the locals became isolated and pushed into smaller and smaller pockets of influence until the next conquest. The arab muslims did not get the chance to do this as they only held the land for 22 years and