Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[USAF 2023]

The “ Palestinian Territories “ that we’re part of Egypt and Jordan? From what I have read, they were never referred to as being “ occupied “.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is another British Rabble-Rouser that has nothing better to talk about (a frustrated antisemitic activist).

(COMMENT)

We should not be surprised. This is not unlike the examples of Americans flying the "Stars and Bars" in the vain hope and illusion that the South will someday rise again. (That ain't happen!)

The Arab Palestinians played no real or decisive role in the 1948 Invasion against the Jewish Right to Self-Determination and THEREFORE have no real standing (no legal basis for filing a complaint) since they were not really a party to the conflict (Israeli Forces 'v' Arab League Forces); nothing ventured in the conflict and nothing to be gained → whether or not the Arab League Forces were successful. If the Arab League was successful (ie Israeli Forces defeated), the territory falls to the Arab League, not the Palestinians. And there is no reason to believe the Arab League Forces would relinquish control to the Arab Palestinians as demonstrated by the Military Governorship in the Gaza Strip and the Annexation of the West Bank to the Hashemite Kingdom.

If there was a Nakba (catastrophe), it was the demonstrated failure by the leadership as exhibited by the Arab League Leaders and not the Israelis. It was the Arab League that triggered the conflict, elevating the conflict from a civil war between two local population groups → non-international armed conflict • NIAC to a conflict involving several Arab League nations → an International Armed Conflict • AIC. Today, the conflict has expanded to include direct involvement by the Islamic Republic of Iran contributing military aid through the on-site Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is another British Rabble-Rouser that has nothing better to talk about (a frustrated antisemitic activist).

View attachment 336815​

(COMMENT)

We should not be surprised. This is not unlike the examples of Americans flying the "Stars and Bars" in the vain hope and illusion that the South will someday rise again. (That ain't happen!)

The Arab Palestinians played no real or decisive role in the 1948 Invasion against the Jewish Right to Self-Determination and THEREFORE have no real standing (no legal basis for filing a complaint) since they were not really a party to the conflict (Israeli Forces 'v' Arab League Forces); nothing ventured in the conflict and nothing to be gained → whether or not the Arab League Forces were successful. If the Arab League was successful (ie Israeli Forces defeated), the territory falls to the Arab League, not the Palestinians. And there is no reason to believe the Arab League Forces would relinquish control to the Arab Palestinians as demonstrated by the Military Governorship in the Gaza Strip and the Annexation of the West Bank to the Hashemite Kingdom.

If there was a Nakba (catastrophe), it was the demonstrated failure by the leadership as exhibited by the Arab League Leaders and not the Israelis. It was the Arab League that triggered the conflict, elevating the conflict from a civil war between two local population groups → non-international armed conflict • NIAC to a conflict involving several Arab League nations → an International Armed Conflict • AIC. Today, the conflict has expanded to include direct involvement by the Islamic Republic of Iran contributing military aid through the on-site Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF).

Most Respectfully,
R

It was the Arab League that triggered the conflict, elevating the conflict from a civil war between two local population groups

I am not sure where this civil war shtick came from.There were, in fact, two groups of people. The native Palestinians and foreign colonial settlers. That can hardly be defined as a civil war. It was a foreign intervention before the Arab armies entered Palestine.

 

[USAF 2023]

 

[rylah]

I am not sure where this civil war shtick came from.There were, in fact, two groups of people. The native Palestinians and foreign colonial settlers. That can hardly be defined as a civil war. It was a foreign intervention before the Arab armies entered Palestine.

That's because your history starts late, in the middle of the conflict,
Pali propaganda won't dare touch on the Arab pogroms that triggered the Zionist uprising.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You have a very narrow view of things.

It was the Arab League that triggered the conflict, elevating the conflict from a civil war between two local population groups

I am not sure where this civil war shtick came from.There were, in fact, two groups of people. The native Palestinians and foreign colonial settlers. That can hardly be defined as a civil war. It was a foreign intervention before the Arab armies entered Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Both the Jewish People and the Arab Palestinians were, by law, the people of the same government (Civil Administration of Palestine by the UK Government).

Depending on when you select the date the conflict started; it has something to do with the type and kind of conflict it is. In some cases, the c conflict for all intent and purposes starts on 1 June 1946. And this is the date the UNRWA Consolidate Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) uses to determine Palestinian Refugee Status. Others consider the outbreak of hostilities on 29 November 1947, when General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) was approved. And still others say the conflict started on 15 May when the National Council for the Jewish State applied to the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) for recognition as the new Provisional Government for the (Jewish) State of Israel.

​

civil war. An internal armed conflict between people of the same nation; esp. (usu. cap.).​

​

imperfect war. A war limited in terms of places, persons, and things.​

​

solemn war. A war formally declared esp. by public declaration by one country against another.​

​

​

(COMMENT)

The conflict between non-governmental factions prior to Midnight 14/15 May 1948 can either be considered a "Civil War" or an "Imperfect War." The two factions of the conflict being the Arabs of the Government of Palestine and the UK Civil Administration - and that of - the Jewish People holding citizenship under the Citizenship Law • as granted by the Government of Palestine and the UK Civil Administration.

IF you consider the start of the conflict being based on the statement by the Arab Higher Committee Delegation - addressed to the Secretary-General, which contains the solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, THEN the conflict can be considered a "solemn war."

Like an algebraic equation that can produce more than one solution. IF you define each solution as an answer, THEN you view the equation one way. IF you define the answers to be the set of the collection of solutions, THEN, you have a different view of the equation. And that brings us to the question of political equations and your approach. Out of the set of solutions, you pick the one solution that favors your position, and only your position. While it is true that your solution may very well satisfies the political Question of Palestine, it may be myopic and not lead to a stable environment.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You have a very narrow view of things.

It was the Arab League that triggered the conflict, elevating the conflict from a civil war between two local population groups

I am not sure where this civil war shtick came from.There were, in fact, two groups of people. The native Palestinians and foreign colonial settlers. That can hardly be defined as a civil war. It was a foreign intervention before the Arab armies entered Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Both the Jewish People and the Arab Palestinians were, by law, the people of the same government (Civil Administration of Palestine by the UK Government).

Depending on when you select the date the conflict started; it has something to do with the type and kind of conflict it is. In some cases, the c conflict for all intent and purposes starts on 1 June 1946. And this is the date the UNRWA Consolidate Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) uses to determine Palestinian Refugee Status. Others consider the outbreak of hostilities on 29 November 1947, when General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) was approved. And still others say the conflict started on 15 May when the National Council for the Jewish State applied to the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) for recognition as the new Provisional Government for the (Jewish) State of Israel.

​

civil war. An internal armed conflict between people of the same nation; esp. (usu. cap.).​

​

imperfect war. A war limited in terms of places, persons, and things.​

​

solemn war. A war formally declared esp. by public declaration by one country against another.​

​

​

(COMMENT)

The conflict between non-governmental factions prior to Midnight 14/15 May 1948 can either be considered a "Civil War" or an "Imperfect War." The two factions of the conflict being the Arabs of the Government of Palestine and the UK Civil Administration - and that of - the Jewish People holding citizenship under the Citizenship Law • as granted by the Government of Palestine and the UK Civil Administration.

IF you consider the start of the conflict being based on the statement by the Arab Higher Committee Delegation - addressed to the Secretary-General, which contains the solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, THEN the conflict can be considered a "solemn war."

Like an algebraic equation that can produce more than one solution. IF you define each solution as an answer, THEN you view the equation one way. IF you define the answers to be the set of the collection of solutions, THEN, you have a different view of the equation. And that brings us to the question of political equations and your approach. Out of the set of solutions, you pick the one solution that favors your position, and only your position. While it is true that your solution may very well satisfies the political Question of Palestine, it may be myopic and not lead to a stable environment.

Most Respectfully,
R

Or it could have started with the Balfour Declaration when Britain promised to fuck the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

At the time of the Balfour Declaration (November 1917) The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA: 1918-1920) had not been formed yet. The people you call "Palestinians" were still subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Those citizens were living in the Ottoman Vilayet of Beirut or the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. In fact, the Mudros Armistice with the Ottoman Empire (October 30, 1918), which was effectively the end of the Great War, was not signed aboard His Britannic Majesty’s Ship Agamemnon, by Admiral Arthur Calthorpe, Commander-in-Chief of the British Mediterranean Fleet, at Port Mudros, until 30th October, 1918.

​

BLUF: You have a very narrow view of things.

Or it could have started with the Balfour Declaration when Britain promised to fuck the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Meanwhile, there was a small revolt in Damascus (30 September 1918) in which the Islamic Leaders of the day appointed Sharif Hussein, Sharif, and Emir of Mecca, as the "King of the Hejaz/King of the Arabs." So, politically speaking, there was a lot of power politic maneuvering at that time. By 1918, the people you have tagged as "Palestinian" where known as the inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory, an area within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Mandatory Power.

I suppose that some people might hold to the dispute between the Jewish Immigrants and the Arab inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory. In 1920, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno began to refer to them as simply - "inhabitants of Palestine." This was in the context of the Mandatory Authority's obligation to secure the development of self-governing institutions; and the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.

Palestine, meaning "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," was in point of fact an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. But the Arabs of Palestine completely rejected the idea of participation. And so they remained "Arab inhabitants of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Nothing changed until May 1948.

So I reject your notion that the Balfour Declaration was a an event that ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Proximate Cause of the conflict rests with the power-hungry Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

At the time of the Balfour Declaration (November 1917) The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA: 1918-1920) had not been formed yet. The people you call "Palestinians" were still subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Those citizens were living in the Ottoman Vilayet of Beirut or the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. In fact, the Mudros Armistice with the Ottoman Empire (October 30, 1918), which was effectively the end of the Great War, was not signed aboard His Britannic Majesty’s Ship Agamemnon, by Admiral Arthur Calthorpe, Commander-in-Chief of the British Mediterranean Fleet, at Port Mudros, until 30th October, 1918.

View attachment 337033
​

BLUF: You have a very narrow view of things.

Or it could have started with the Balfour Declaration when Britain promised to fuck the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Meanwhile, there was a small revolt in Damascus (30 September 1918) in which the Islamic Leaders of the day appointed Sharif Hussein, Sharif, and Emir of Mecca, as the "King of the Hejaz/King of the Arabs." So, politically speaking, there was a lot of power politic maneuvering at that time. By 1918, the people you have tagged as "Palestinian" where known as the inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory, an area within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Mandatory Power.

I suppose that some people might hold to the dispute between the Jewish Immigrants and the Arab inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory. In 1920, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno began to refer to them as simply - "inhabitants of Palestine." This was in the context of the Mandatory Authority's obligation to secure the development of self-governing institutions; and the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.

Palestine, meaning "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," was in point of fact an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. But the Arabs of Palestine completely rejected the idea of participation. And so they remained "Arab inhabitants of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Nothing changed until May 1948.

So I reject your notion that the Balfour Declaration was a an event that ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Proximate Cause of the conflict rests with the power-hungry Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice piece of smoke there, Rocco.

If, as you imply, there was no Palestine, why was the term "in Palestine" used in Balfour and San Remo? Why was the Mandate called the Mandate for Palestine? All this name shuffling at the time did not change who were the natives of the territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Palestinian Rights to Resources

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You have a very narrow view of things.

It was the Arab League that triggered the conflict, elevating the conflict from a civil war between two local population groups

I am not sure where this civil war shtick came from.There were, in fact, two groups of people. The native Palestinians and foreign colonial settlers. That can hardly be defined as a civil war. It was a foreign intervention before the Arab armies entered Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Both the Jewish People and the Arab Palestinians were, by law, the people of the same government (Civil Administration of Palestine by the UK Government).

Depending on when you select the date the conflict started; it has something to do with the type and kind of conflict it is. In some cases, the c conflict for all intent and purposes starts on 1 June 1946. And this is the date the UNRWA Consolidate Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) uses to determine Palestinian Refugee Status. Others consider the outbreak of hostilities on 29 November 1947, when General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) was approved. And still others say the conflict started on 15 May when the National Council for the Jewish State applied to the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) for recognition as the new Provisional Government for the (Jewish) State of Israel.

​

civil war. An internal armed conflict between people of the same nation; esp. (usu. cap.).​

​

imperfect war. A war limited in terms of places, persons, and things.​

​

solemn war. A war formally declared esp. by public declaration by one country against another.​

​

​

(COMMENT)

The conflict between non-governmental factions prior to Midnight 14/15 May 1948 can either be considered a "Civil War" or an "Imperfect War." The two factions of the conflict being the Arabs of the Government of Palestine and the UK Civil Administration - and that of - the Jewish People holding citizenship under the Citizenship Law • as granted by the Government of Palestine and the UK Civil Administration.

IF you consider the start of the conflict being based on the statement by the Arab Higher Committee Delegation - addressed to the Secretary-General, which contains the solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, THEN the conflict can be considered a "solemn war."

Like an algebraic equation that can produce more than one solution. IF you define each solution as an answer, THEN you view the equation one way. IF you define the answers to be the set of the collection of solutions, THEN, you have a different view of the equation. And that brings us to the question of political equations and your approach. Out of the set of solutions, you pick the one solution that favors your position, and only your position. While it is true that your solution may very well satisfies the political Question of Palestine, it may be myopic and not lead to a stable environment.

Most Respectfully,
R

Or it could have started with the Balfour Declaration when Britain promised to fuck the Palestinians.

Or with the Arabs pogroms against local Jews allover the Caliphate

- in effect initiating the Zionism uprising.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

At the time of the Balfour Declaration (November 1917) The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA: 1918-1920) had not been formed yet. The people you call "Palestinians" were still subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Those citizens were living in the Ottoman Vilayet of Beirut or the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. In fact, the Mudros Armistice with the Ottoman Empire (October 30, 1918), which was effectively the end of the Great War, was not signed aboard His Britannic Majesty’s Ship Agamemnon, by Admiral Arthur Calthorpe, Commander-in-Chief of the British Mediterranean Fleet, at Port Mudros, until 30th October, 1918.

View attachment 337033
​

BLUF: You have a very narrow view of things.

Or it could have started with the Balfour Declaration when Britain promised to fuck the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Meanwhile, there was a small revolt in Damascus (30 September 1918) in which the Islamic Leaders of the day appointed Sharif Hussein, Sharif, and Emir of Mecca, as the "King of the Hejaz/King of the Arabs." So, politically speaking, there was a lot of power politic maneuvering at that time. By 1918, the people you have tagged as "Palestinian" where known as the inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory, an area within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Mandatory Power.

I suppose that some people might hold to the dispute between the Jewish Immigrants and the Arab inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory. In 1920, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Reno began to refer to them as simply - "inhabitants of Palestine." This was in the context of the Mandatory Authority's obligation to secure the development of self-governing institutions; and the safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.

Palestine, meaning "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," was in point of fact an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. But the Arabs of Palestine completely rejected the idea of participation. And so they remained "Arab inhabitants of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Nothing changed until May 1948.

So I reject your notion that the Balfour Declaration was a an event that ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Proximate Cause of the conflict rests with the power-hungry Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice piece of smoke there, Rocco.

If, as you imply, there was no Palestine, why was the term "in Palestine" used in Balfour and San Remo? Why was the Mandate called the Mandate for Palestine? All this name shuffling at the time did not change who were the natives of the territory.

Palestine - was a name for a geographical area,
called 'Southern Syria' by Arabs.

The entire Pali propaganda is entirely based on this name shuffling farce,
to create a false identity by appropriating a name of the land they can't even pronounce.

But indeed all that political shenanigans didn't change history,
even the Arab mayor of Jerusalem knew well who were the real natives of the land:

 

[rylah]