Palestinians Reject Two State Solution

[MJB12741]

The Jews have never had any intention of compromising.

I don't like your tone or your choice of words. But I agree with your point, a point that ought to be obvious to ANYONE who's actually done some reading about the facts and details of the initial creation (from Day One) of the creation of Israel.

The native inhabitants of Palestine, who under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were to tutored towards independence and self-determination by the Mandatory, were supplanted by Europeans transferred to Palestine who were installed as rulers over the native inhabitants. None of your bullshit changes this basic fact.

Well said! Bravo!

I am not sure how the tone or the choice of words could be different to communicate the thought. If it is the word "Jew", let me explain. I have tried calling the people that invaded Palestine from Europe "Europeans", but I was criticized, notwithstanding the fact that they were Europeans. If I call them Israelis or Israeli Jews, the former would not include the people that invaded Palestine pre-Israel and the latter would include non-Jewish Israelis who are not to blame at all. It's a dilemma, so I have settled for the word Jew to describe the people in question.

The word you should be looking for is ..... Zionist.[/QUOTE

How do ya like that. And I never even knew "Zionism" began with Solomon's Temple.

 

[MJB12741]

The Jews have never had any intention of compromising.

I don't like your tone or your choice of words. But I agree with your point, a point that ought to be obvious to ANYONE who's actually done some reading about the facts and details of the initial creation (from Day One) of the creation of Israel.

The native inhabitants of Palestine, who under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were to tutored towards independence and self-determination by the Mandatory, were supplanted by Europeans transferred to Palestine who were installed as rulers over the native inhabitants. None of your bullshit changes this basic fact.

Well said! Bravo!

I am not sure how the tone or the choice of words could be different to communicate the thought. If it is the word "Jew", let me explain. I have tried calling the people that invaded Palestine from Europe "Europeans", but I was criticized, notwithstanding the fact that they were Europeans. If I call them Israelis or Israeli Jews, the former would not include the people that invaded Palestine pre-Israel and the latter would include non-Jewish Israelis who are not to blame at all. It's a dilemma, so I have settled for the word Jew to describe the people in question.

The word you should be looking for is ..... Zionist.

How do ya like that. And I never even knew Zionism began with Solomon's Temple.

 

[montelatici]

Shusha, et al,

If the issue of "borders" are brought to a forced conclusion, then I believe that the International Community will definitely side with the Arab Palestinians.

We know where Palestine was ..... and is - no, maybe not. We do know where it ought to be according international law. Israel is in breach of that law.

We know where it ought to be according to international law? Well, this is news. Tell me, where is the legal international boundary between Israel and "Palestine"? What treaty or legal instrument put that boundary in place? And where, exactly, is Israel breaching that boundary?

(COMMENT)

There is no more of a complicated issue than this. The all the parties to the conflict have allowed this to drag-on much too long.

I would hate to speculate, as there are so many aspects of the question to be considered.

I think that the Arab Palestinians themselves are an obstacle to any serious discussions. I'm of the opinion and concerned that the Arab Palestinians have no intention to compromise on any issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jews have never had any intention of compromising. The native inhabitants of Palestine, who under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were to tutored towards independence and self-determination by the Mandatory, were supplanted by Europeans transferred to Palestine who were installed as rulers over the native inhabitants. None of your bullshit changes this basic fact.

"Native inhabitants" --- were Jews.

That nonsense was debunked long ago, before the arrival of the Europeans there were a handful of Arab Jews in Palestine and they were relative newcomers from other parts of the Ottoman Empire.

"30 July 1921

AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF

PALESTINE,

during the period
1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.


AN INTERIM REPORT
ON THE
CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
OF
PALESTINE.

I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews."
Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)

We even have documentary film from the late 1800s to debunk your propaganda, Mr. Muslim Archbishop.

 

[montelatici]

The Jews have never had any intention of compromising.

I don't like your tone or your choice of words. But I agree with your point, a point that ought to be obvious to ANYONE who's actually done some reading about the facts and details of the initial creation (from Day One) of the creation of Israel.

The native inhabitants of Palestine, who under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were to tutored towards independence and self-determination by the Mandatory, were supplanted by Europeans transferred to Palestine who were installed as rulers over the native inhabitants. None of your bullshit changes this basic fact.

Well said! Bravo!

I am not sure how the tone or the choice of words could be different to communicate the thought. If it is the word "Jew", let me explain. I have tried calling the people that invaded Palestine from Europe "Europeans", but I was criticized, notwithstanding the fact that they were Europeans. If I call them Israelis or Israeli Jews, the former would not include the people that invaded Palestine pre-Israel and the latter would include non-Jewish Israelis who are not to blame at all. It's a dilemma, so I have settled for the word Jew to describe the people in question.

The word you should be looking for is ..... Zionist.

How do ya like that. And I never even knew Zionism began with Solomon's Temple.

You thought that Archbishops were Muslims, so whatever you say should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[GLASNOST]

The word you should be looking for is ..... Zionist.

How do ya like that. And I never even knew Zionism began with Solomon's Temple.

Are you only feigning ignorance or making absurd conclusions based upon true stupidity?

 

[montelatici]

The word you should be looking for is ..... Zionist.

How do ya like that. And I never even knew Zionism began with Solomon's Temple.

Are you only feigning ignorance or making absurd conclusions based upon true stupidity?

I think the latter. He insisted that a Greek Orthodox Archbishop was a Muslim. He even started a thread to that effect.

 

[GLASNOST]

He insisted that a Greek Orthodox Archbishop was a Muslim. He even started a thread to that effect.

No! Really?

 

[MJB12741]

The Jews have never had any intention of compromising.

I don't like your tone or your choice of words. But I agree with your point, a point that ought to be obvious to ANYONE who's actually done some reading about the facts and details of the initial creation (from Day One) of the creation of Israel.

The native inhabitants of Palestine, who under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were to tutored towards independence and self-determination by the Mandatory, were supplanted by Europeans transferred to Palestine who were installed as rulers over the native inhabitants. None of your bullshit changes this basic fact.

Well said! Bravo!

I am not sure how the tone or the choice of words could be different to communicate the thought. If it is the word "Jew", let me explain. I have tried calling the people that invaded Palestine from Europe "Europeans", but I was criticized, notwithstanding the fact that they were Europeans. If I call them Israelis or Israeli Jews, the former would not include the people that invaded Palestine pre-Israel and the latter would include non-Jewish Israelis who are not to blame at all. It's a dilemma, so I have settled for the word Jew to describe the people in question.

The word you should be looking for is ..... Zionist.

How do ya like that. And I never even knew Zionism began with Solomon's Temple.

You thought that Archbishops were Muslims, so whatever you say should be taken with a grain of salt.

Archbishops are Muslims? I didn't know that.

 

[montelatici]

He insisted that a Greek Orthodox Archbishop was a Muslim. He even started a thread to that effect.

No! Really?

The funny thing is that he keeps trying to deny it, as he did above, and then I post the link to thread he started and his assertion regarding Muslim Archbishops is there in black and white. He is so dimwitted he keeps doing the same thing over and over and expects a different result, i.e. one that doesn't humiliate him. Or is that the definition of insanity?

Here is the link to the thread he started, note that he claims Muslims can't get along with Christians when the article is about a Christian Archbishop being fired by his superior in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Palestinian Archbishop Fired by Greek Orthodox Christians

 

[MJB12741]

He insisted that a Greek Orthodox Archbishop was a Muslim. He even started a thread to that effect.

No! Really?

The funny thing is that he keeps trying to deny it, as he did above, and then I post the link to thread he started and his assertion regarding Muslim Archbishops is there in black and white. He is so dimwitted he keeps doing the same thing over and over and expects a different result, i.e. one that doesn't humiliate him. Or is that the definition of insanity?

Here is the link to the thread he started, note that he claims Muslims can't get along with Christians when the article is about a Christian Archbishop being fired by his superior in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Palestinian Archbishop Fired by Greek Orthodox Christians

Oh boy, what fun. Yep, the Archbishop was indeed a Palestinian who supported Palestinians against their church.

 

[montelatici]

But you indicated it was a Muslim versus Christian dynamic, not between Christians.

You wrote:

"It is truly sad that Muslim Palestinians cannot even get along with fellow Christian Palestinians."

It's there in black and white in thread linked below, your thread. LOL

Palestinian Archbishop Fired by Greek Orthodox Christians

And, what in the heck do you mean when you write:

" the Archbishop was indeed a Palestinian who supported Palestinians against their church."

How can one "support Palestinians against their church".

You keep digging deeper and deeper moron.

Just give it up. You continue to humiliate yourself by drawing attention to your stupidity.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

We have to remember that this Memo was written before the Coordinated attack by Arab League Forces (external interference).

Before the coordinated attack, the Israelis use the the territory outlined for the Jewish State in the Partition Plan.

Israel declares its borders.

(COMMENT)

This document (interestingly enough as it is) does not alter the timeline; and does not really contribute anything we did not already know. The Arab-Israeli Conflict up to the Armistice Agreements expanded the area under the control and direct influence of Jewish Forces.

What does it change? Nothing...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[GLASNOST]

He is so dimwitted he keeps doing the same thing over and over and expects a different result ...

Yeah. When I was a kid, my parents wanted some down-time to produce more children so they sent me to the movie everyday. "Old Yeller" was playing and I must have seen it 10 times! But no matter how many times I saw it I kept on hoping that they wouldn't shoot the dog at the end ..... "this time".

The funny thing is that he keeps trying to deny it, as he did above, and then I post the link to thread he started and his assertion regarding Muslim Archbishops is there in black and white.

Someone once said, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing". That's true. Your friend must have heard that Turkey is a predominantly Moslem nation. That's all he needed to know to assume (I mean to KNOW!) that the Greek Orthodox archbishop is a Moslem.

 

[GLASNOST]

Yep, the Archbishop was indeed a Palestinian .......

You're American,eh? So what's your real name .... "Dances with sheep"? "Runs on one leg"? "Rain in the ass"? I guess you must be a Sun Dancer or a Corn Dancer, huh?

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

We have to remember that this Memo was written before the Coordinated attack by Arab League Forces (external interference).

Before the coordinated attack, the Israelis use the the territory outlined for the Jewish State in the Partition Plan.

Israel declares its borders.

(COMMENT)

This document (interestingly enough as it is) does not alter the timeline; and does not really contribute anything we did not already know. The Arab-Israeli Conflict up to the Armistice Agreements expanded the area under the control and direct influence of Jewish Forces.

What does it change? Nothing...

Most Respectfully,
R

It is the only officially declared boundary submitted in the formal request to the United States for recognition by Israel. Truman refused to recognize Israel without the inclusion of the stated border of the state of Israel. This can be discerned from Clifford Clark's memoirs. It changes everything in terms of the bovine manure you spread in the forum. Your assertion that there was no officially declared border is false, for one thing.

The humanitarian intervention on the part of the Arab League, in its attempt to prevent Jewish war crimes against the Christian and Muslim native inhabitants of Palestine is irrelevant, it does not modify the officially declared border.

For the purposes of the Palestinian people, who were not participants in the matters that evoked the armistice agreements, it changes everything.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

We have to remember that this Memo was written before the Coordinated attack by Arab League Forces (external interference).

Before the coordinated attack, the Israelis use the the territory outlined for the Jewish State in the Partition Plan.

Israel declares its borders.

(COMMENT)

This document (interestingly enough as it is) does not alter the timeline; and does not really contribute anything we did not already know. The Arab-Israeli Conflict up to the Armistice Agreements expanded the area under the control and direct influence of Jewish Forces.

What does it change? Nothing...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Shusha, et al,

If the issue of "borders" are brought to a forced conclusion, then I believe that the International Community will definitely side with the Arab Palestinians.


(COMMENT)

There is no more of a complicated issue than this. The all the parties to the conflict have allowed this to drag-on much too long.

I would hate to speculate, as there are so many aspects of the question to be considered.

I think that the Arab Palestinians themselves are an obstacle to any serious discussions. I'm of the opinion and concerned that the Arab Palestinians have no intention to compromise on any issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

We agree. One of the most unfortunate aspects of the conflict is the international acceptance of the false idea of "the 1967 border". Its is one of the areas where Arab Palestinian lack of compromise extends the conflict needlessly. Borders would be fairly easy to arrange if one let go of that notion and just drew a border based primarily (but not entirely) on residence of Arabs and Jews.

Admitedly, this is getting harder and harder to manage, especially with the Jerusalem to Jericho corridor which splits the potential Palestine in half.

But I think that there is little chance of a forced conclusion at this juncture. Israel has considerable control over events, a relatively good relationship with Jordan, Egypt and a few other ME States, and a growing and troublesome common enemy with the extremist Muslim groups. In the end, Israel is not willing to incorporate so many hostiles into their nation, so a two state solution is inevitable unless Jordan and Egypt takes them along with some territory.

It all depends on where the Palestinians head when Abbas passes. But that is not looking especially promising for the Palestinians.

 

[montelatici]

There was no attack by the Arab League. Your continue to propagate this propaganda. The Arab League entered Palestine to restore order and protect the native inhabitants of Palestine. The aggressors were the hostile Jews as indicated below in the Arab League declaration to the UN and as confirmed by recently declassified British intelligence reports.

Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (1948)

"On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed, I have the honour to request your Excellency to bring following statement before General Assembly and Security Council........Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.................................The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.

Arab League Declaration on the intervention in Palestine, 15 May 1948 | Religion :: Science :: Peace

 

[Shusha]

The native inhabitants of Palestine.....

were the Jews, of course. The pre-conquest culture. They did receive tutelage, to great success. The Arab Palestinians did not receive tutelage because they refused to co-operate with the Mandate and refused to recognize the point of the Mandate -- which was to bring ALL the native inhabitants to self-government. It was the Arab Palestinians who rejected the tutelage, not the other way around.

 

[montelatici]

The native inhabitants of Palestine.....

were the Jews, of course. The pre-conquest culture. They did receive tutelage, to great success. The Arab Palestinians did not receive tutelage because they refused to co-operate with the Mandate and refused to recognize the point of the Mandate -- which was to bring ALL the native inhabitants to self-government. It was the Arab Palestinians who rejected the tutelage, not the other way around.

No, the Jews were native and inhabitants of Europe. The Christians and Muslims were the native inhabitants of Palestine. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations states that the "inhabitants" of the former Turkish territories were to receive tutelage, not inhabitants of Europe. The British refused to provide tutelage to the Christians and Muslims. I have provided all the links to the official correspondence that shows that while the British were negotiating with the Zionist Organization, the British Colonial Office refused to work with the Christian and Muslim leadership.