Seek Peace, Pursue Justice in Israel-Palestine

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is strictly my take on the issue of "foreigners" and the impact it should have (which differs from the impact it does have).

Great post, thanks.

If Britain did not cater to the agenda of foreigners there would not have been a hundred year war.

(COMMENT)

The issue of Jewish Immigration being portrayed as a "Foreign Invasion" is simply a smart approach, using savvy language, to make it appear it has some adverse significance. It eloquently puts the pro-Jewish position on the defensive, and ever so subtlety impresses the adverse suggestion that Jewish Immigration was a "Bad Thing" (simply because someone told us it was).

(PREFACE)

For about 2500 years, since the time of Nebuchadnezzar (587 BCE, Babylonian) ransacked Jerusalem and destroyed the First Temple, the Jewish People have been on a trek, first exiled the to Babylon (not a 100 miles southwest of Baghdad); then again, about 2100 years ago when the revolt against Hadrian was lost, Judea was renamed, and the great preponderance of Jewish People were again outcast. The word that has come into use for it was "diaspora." This cycle was to play itself over and over again whether we talk about the dispersal made necessary by the impact of the Spanish Inquisition 15th Century, or the forced migration during the period of the Reformation. In modern times, the wholesale persecution of the Jews across Europe during WWII (sometimes referred to as the Holocaust) with the virulent rise in anti-Semitism gave the world leadership and intelligencia pause for considered thought. The intellectual conclusion, especially in the Western World, was that the Jewish culture was very much worth saving, preserving, and protecting from further decimation. Even in some quarters of the Jewish community that had survived, arose the mentality of "never again." And there came into theory the concept of a Jewish Homeland; which evolved into a return to their roots; the ancient Israel, Judea, the land renamed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian as "Palestine" (a variant of Philistine).

(OPINION) The Convergence of Ideas

The world leadership, intelligencia, and ruling elite, along with mid-19th Century thinkers and philosophers, began to slowly coalesce with their ideas gradually seeking an intersection, on not only a common theme, but a common solution.

It may have never been the original intention for the issue of Jewish Immigration (whatever timeframe) to have been of any importance. The goal was to create an environment that would save, perserve and protect the Jewish Culture and its People for all time - a place of refuge, safety and shelter; free of the injustices inflicted upon them for more than a millenium. To replant them in the most logical place on Earth, their point of origin.

I don't think that the world leadership, intelligencia, ruling elite, 19th Century thinkers and philosophers gave much thought to the medieval Arab (of the Mamluk/Ottoman linage) inhabitants that permeated the region. The objective was clear, and a just cause. I think the general thought that prevailed was that the medieval indigenous population would either grasp and enjoin with the concept, or not understand and justification would be a futile waste. It would be beyond their comprehension and thus well beyond their benevolence of mind and subculture.

The problem that has arose, is that the ensuing conflict, the unreconcilable differences that have evolved, and the death of the original leadership, intelligencia, ruling elite, 19th Century thinkers, and philosophers, the understanding behind the purpose was lost. Now it is merely all about the struggle.

The argument over foreigners, is really about the argument that they were suppose to be gathering the Jews from all over the world. Them being foreigners was never an issue; but the intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

The world leadership, intelligencia, and ruling elite, along with mid-19th Century thinkers and philosophers

How many of those were Palestinian and how many were foreigners?

I don't think that the world leadership, intelligencia, ruling elite, 19th Century thinkers and philosophers gave much thought to the medieval Arab

Indeed, colonialists have always been that way about the natives.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In stages, at points on the continuum of development, the western powers have not really observed much of a difference in the methods and behaviors in Arab negotiations, diplomacy and disputed resolution. Whether you examine the Moors establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate in Cordoba, the Treaty with Tripoli and the Barbary States, the total destruction of Safed and disposition of the Jewish citizenry, the Blood Libel - Damascus Affair, the Hebron Event of August 1929, right up to the modern day. While the tools have changed, and newer methods of delivery are incorporated in conventional strategy as time goes by, the concept of Dhimmitude and Jihad are almost exactly the same in the eyes of the westerner.

This have an effect on how the 19th Century and early-20th Century Allied Power held a view towards the Arab.

The world leadership, intelligencia, and ruling elite, along with mid-19th Century thinkers and philosophers

How many of those were Palestinian and how many were foreigners?

(COMMENT)

I would venture to say, none of them. With the possible exception of Michel Aflaq (Damascus born), there were no real philosophers of any consequence that emerged out of the Middle East Region in the 19th and 20th Century. All the Arab/Persian ruling elite, with the exception for HM King Abdul-Azziz, (especially post-WWII) owed their sovereign control to the Allied Powers. Even Egypt was a British Protectorate until 1922.

I don't think that the world leadership, intelligencia, ruling elite, 19th Century thinkers and philosophers gave much thought to the medieval Arab

Indeed, colonialists have always been that way about the natives.

(COMMENT)

While it is the case that both inductive and deductive logic are essentially identical in comparison between the Western Culture and Middle Eastern/Persian Cultures --- it is when we examine many ethical, metaphysical, existential, and epistemological concepts that we find the greatest challenge in the difference. And it is here that we see the greatest discord. Each views the other as incapable of understanding the basics in the relevant value system; having an impact on the implementation of laws, and the execution of justice and diplomacy.

Hense one see the other as a faithless heathen, with the reflection that the opponent is an unbelieving heretic beyond the one, true doctrine. While many modern world leaders, members of the intelligencia, captains of industry, and ruling elite, (along with mid-19th Century thinkers and philosophers) suggest today that no one is at war with any religious system and that political and diplomatic decision processes are separated out of the equation, the reality is that it is all to often wrong. It is becoming all to clear that many sources of discord are non-secular at the point of origin; and where it is embedded into the process. And it is in this distinction that one culture (secular) sees the other culture (nonsecular) as being retarded by dogma. Thus, the impression that one is medieval in nature.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In stages, at points on the continuum of development, the western powers have not really observed much of a difference in the methods and behaviors in Arab negotiations, diplomacy and disputed resolution. Whether you examine the Moors establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate in Cordoba, the Treaty with Tripoli and the Barbary States, the total destruction of Safed and disposition of the Jewish citizenry, the Blood Libel - Damascus Affair, the Hebron Event of August 1929, right up to the modern day. While the tools have changed, and newer methods of delivery are incorporated in conventional strategy as time goes by, the concept of Dhimmitude and Jihad are almost exactly the same in the eyes of the westerner.

This have an effect on how the 19th Century and early-20th Century Allied Power held a view towards the Arab.

The world leadership, intelligencia, and ruling elite, along with mid-19th Century thinkers and philosophers

How many of those were Palestinian and how many were foreigners?

(COMMENT)

I would venture to say, none of them. With the possible exception of Michel Aflaq (Damascus born), there were no real philosophers of any consequence that emerged out of the Middle East Region in the 19th and 20th Century. All the Arab/Persian ruling elite, with the exception for HM King Abdul-Azziz, (especially post-WWII) owed their sovereign control to the Allied Powers. Even Egypt was a British Protectorate until 1922.

All that does not answer the question. It is a simple phrase: "without external interference"

Why was that phrase included in the definition of self determination?

What do you think it means?

I don't think that the world leadership, intelligencia, ruling elite, 19th Century thinkers and philosophers gave much thought to the medieval Arab

Indeed, colonialists have always been that way about the natives.

(COMMENT)

While it is the case that both inductive and deductive logic are essentially identical in comparison between the Western Culture and Middle Eastern/Persian Cultures --- it is when we examine many ethical, metaphysical, existential, and epistemological concepts that we find the greatest challenge in the difference. And it is here that we see the greatest discord. Each views the other as incapable of understanding the basics in the relevant value system; having an impact on the implementation of laws, and the execution of justice and diplomacy.

Hense one see the other as a faithless heathen, with the reflection that the opponent is an unbelieving heretic beyond the one, true doctrine. While many modern world leaders, members of the intelligencia, captains of industry, and ruling elite, (along with mid-19th Century thinkers and philosophers) suggest today that no one is at war with any religious system and that political and diplomatic decision processes are separated out of the equation, the reality is that it is all to often wrong. It is becoming all to clear that many sources of discord are non-secular at the point of origin; and where it is embedded into the process. And it is in this distinction that one culture (secular) sees the other culture (nonsecular) as being retarded by dogma. Thus, the impression that one is medieval in nature.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, the concept of external influences is tricky and applies to more than just the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

All that does not answer the question. It is a simple phrase: "without external interference"

Why was that phrase included in the definition of self determination?

What do you think it means?

(COMMENT)

In a Mandate, there are specific players. And these players are named in the Mandate.

Relative to the Mandate of Palestine there were: (cut'n'paste)

• Principal Allied Powers
• Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine
• all the inhabitants of Palestine
• Jews who take up their permanent residence/all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home

Anyone not listed, by Mandate of the Council of the League of Nations, is a foreign power or influence.

In the Charter, the phrase is meant to relieve the inhabitants of proxy war proponents. For instance, the situation in Syria is being influenced by externals like Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah who are providing support against the inhabitance in favor of the Government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, the concept of external influences is tricky and applies to more than just the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

All that does not answer the question. It is a simple phrase: "without external interference"

Why was that phrase included in the definition of self determination?

What do you think it means?

(COMMENT)

In a Mandate, there are specific players. And these players are named in the Mandate.

Relative to the Mandate of Palestine there were: (cut'n'paste)

• Principal Allied Powers
• Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine
• all the inhabitants of Palestine
• Jews who take up their permanent residence/all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home

Anyone not listed, by Mandate of the Council of the League of Nations, is a foreign power or influence.

In the Charter, the phrase is meant to relieve the inhabitants of proxy war proponents. For instance, the situation in Syria is being influenced by externals like Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah who are providing support against the inhabitance in favor of the Government.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is only partly true. If Britain, for example, stayed with the LoN Covenant and rendered administrative assistance and advice to the people, that would not be external interference. But instead, Britain trampled any attempt of the Palestinians to create their own state. It shoved the people aside and catered to the agenda of foreigners. That was external interference.

It is not who they were but what they did.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, the concept of external influences is tricky and applies to more than just the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

All that does not answer the question. It is a simple phrase: "without external interference"

Why was that phrase included in the definition of self determination?

What do you think it means?

(COMMENT)

In a Mandate, there are specific players. And these players are named in the Mandate.

Relative to the Mandate of Palestine there were: (cut'n'paste)

• Principal Allied Powers
• Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine
• all the inhabitants of Palestine
• Jews who take up their permanent residence/all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home

Anyone not listed, by Mandate of the Council of the League of Nations, is a foreign power or influence.

In the Charter, the phrase is meant to relieve the inhabitants of proxy war proponents. For instance, the situation in Syria is being influenced by externals like Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah who are providing support against the inhabitance in favor of the Government.

Most Respectfully,
R

BTW, you forgot to mention one of the major players in this overthrow.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJRs18A7qnE]USA is the main Arms Supplier for the Regime Change Operation in Syria (Sibel Edmonds, dec 16, 2011) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This has nothing to do with Syria.

BTW, you forgot to mention one of the major players in this overthrow.

USA is the main Arms Supplier for the Regime Change Operation in Syria (Sibel Edmonds, dec 16, 2011) - YouTube

(COMMENT)

Besides this unsubstantiated allegation that is almost two years old, I don't think it has demonstrated any evidence that the US is supplying weapons to either side. My understanding is that the US (White House) rejected last years plan to rearm anti-Government rebels in Syria.

Do you have something more substantial?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This has nothing to do with Syria.

BTW, you forgot to mention one of the major players in this overthrow.

USA is the main Arms Supplier for the Regime Change Operation in Syria (Sibel Edmonds, dec 16, 2011) - YouTube

(COMMENT)

Besides this unsubstantiated allegation that is almost two years old, I don't think it has demonstrated any evidence that the US is supplying weapons to either side. My understanding is that the US (White House) rejected last years plan to rearm anti-Government rebels in Syria.

Do you have something more substantial?

Most Respectfully,
R

So, we are going to stop supplying weapons to the rebels before Assad is removed?

That does not make any sense.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is not a case of "stop." The US never was supplying weapons to either side.

This has nothing to do with Syria.

BTW, you forgot to mention one of the major players in this overthrow.

USA is the main Arms Supplier for the Regime Change Operation in Syria (Sibel Edmonds, dec 16, 2011) - YouTube

(COMMENT)

Besides this unsubstantiated allegation that is almost two years old, I don't think it has demonstrated any evidence that the US is supplying weapons to either side. My understanding is that the US (White House) rejected last years plan to rearm anti-Government rebels in Syria.

Do you have something more substantial?

Most Respectfully,
R

So, we are going to stop supplying weapons to the rebels before Assad is removed?

That does not make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The Syrian uprising, is an off-shoot of the Arab Spring; a very tricky and dangerous event for the US to have any involvement. The US needs to sit back and let the Arab World deal with the event and the Syrians to resolve their own issues. The US should not get involved at all.

The Syrian People want to regain control of their government. While the US sympathizes with their plight, it should only provided non-lethal humanitarian aid. There are some unsavory elements that have injected themselves into this struggle which preclude the US from becoming entangled. Elements for which the US cannot provide any lethal technology or supplies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is not a case of "stop." The US never was supplying weapons to either side.

This has nothing to do with Syria.


(COMMENT)

Besides this unsubstantiated allegation that is almost two years old, I don't think it has demonstrated any evidence that the US is supplying weapons to either side. My understanding is that the US (White House) rejected last years plan to rearm anti-Government rebels in Syria.

Do you have something more substantial?

Most Respectfully,
R

So, we are going to stop supplying weapons to the rebels before Assad is removed?

That does not make any sense.

(COMMENT)

The Syrian uprising, is an off-shoot of the Arab Spring; a very tricky and dangerous event for the US to have any involvement. The US needs to sit back and let the Arab World deal with the event and the Syrians to resolve their own issues. The US should not get involved at all.

The Syrian People want to regain control of their government. While the US sympathizes with their plight, it should only provided non-lethal humanitarian aid. There are some unsavory elements that have injected themselves into this struggle which preclude the US from becoming entangled. Elements for which the US cannot provide any lethal technology or supplies.

Most Respectfully,
R

Uhhh.....OK.

Now back to those foreigners.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine is the poster child of external interference. It went from Ottoman rule to British occupation, to Israeli occupation without a day between to catch their breath.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This has nothing to do with Syria.

BTW, you forgot to mention one of the major players in this overthrow.

USA is the main Arms Supplier for the Regime Change Operation in Syria (Sibel Edmonds, dec 16, 2011) - YouTube

(COMMENT)

Besides this unsubstantiated allegation that is almost two years old, I don't think it has demonstrated any evidence that the US is supplying weapons to either side. My understanding is that the US (White House) rejected last years plan to rearm anti-Government rebels in Syria.

Do you have something more substantial?

Most Respectfully,
R

What the US does officially and unofficially are two very different matters. And as Robert Fisk pointed out in his interview with Democracy Now yesterday, when people in the ME see Israel bomb Syria they see the US as a part of it. After all, where did those weapons used to bomb Syria come from?

 

[irosie91]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This has nothing to do with Syria.

BTW, you forgot to mention one of the major players in this overthrow.

USA is the main Arms Supplier for the Regime Change Operation in Syria (Sibel Edmonds, dec 16, 2011) - YouTube

(COMMENT)

Besides this unsubstantiated allegation that is almost two years old, I don't think it has demonstrated any evidence that the US is supplying weapons to either side. My understanding is that the US (White House) rejected last years plan to rearm anti-Government rebels in Syria.

Do you have something more substantial?

Most Respectfully,

R

What the US does officially and unofficially are two very different matters. And as Robert Fisk pointed out in his interview with Democracy Now yesterday, when people in the ME see
Israel bomb Syria they see the US as a part of it. After all, where did those weapons used to bomb Syria come from?

I don't know from where? from where did the pressure cookers
that your fellow isa-respecters use to murder americans come from?

When did Israel "BOMB SYRIA" ? last I heard Israel bombed some
of the weapons that your fellow isa respecters are using to murder
tens of thousands of men women and children----a few of the guards
caring for your fave baby smashing bombs----did get killed in the process

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine is the poster child of external interference. It went from Ottoman rule to British occupation, to Israeli occupation without a day between to catch their breath.

Of course external interference is illegal under international law.

 

[toastman]

Palestine is the poster child of external interference. It went from Ottoman rule to British occupation, to Israeli occupation without a day between to catch their breath.

Of course external interference is illegal under international law.

Exactly ! Not one point in history have the Palestinians ruled any of the land known today as Israel (formerly British Mandate of Palestine) .It meant nothing to the Palestinians until the Jews started to build a homeland for themselves. The place was mostly an arid wasteland an desert.
Too little too late for the Palestinians if you ask me. They've had so many opportunities to have a legit State, but, you know the rest .....

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine is the poster child of external interference. It went from Ottoman rule to British occupation, to Israeli occupation without a day between to catch their breath.

Of course external interference is illegal under international law.

Exactly ! Not one point in history have the Palestinians ruled any of the land known today as Israel (formerly British Mandate of Palestine) .It meant nothing to the Palestinians until the Jews started to build a homeland for themselves. The place was mostly an arid wasteland an desert.
Too little too late for the Palestinians if you ask me. They've had so many opportunities to have a legit State, but, you know the rest .....

Exactly ! Not one point in history have the Palestinians ruled any of the land known today as Israel

Irrelevant.

They've had so many opportunities to have a legit State, but, you know the rest .....

Not once.

 

[toastman]

Of course external interference is illegal under international law.

Exactly ! Not one point in history have the Palestinians ruled any of the land known today as Israel (formerly British Mandate of Palestine) .It meant nothing to the Palestinians until the Jews started to build a homeland for themselves. The place was mostly an arid wasteland an desert.
Too little too late for the Palestinians if you ask me. They've had so many opportunities to have a legit State, but, you know the rest .....

Exactly ! Not one point in history have the Palestinians ruled any of the land known today as Israel

Irrelevant.

They've had so many opportunities to have a legit State, but, you know the rest .....

Not once.

VERY relevant !

And yes, there have been offers made to thew Palestinians which included 97% of the West Bank. They refused. They could have had a state 10 times over by now. But instead, they chose the path violence, and where has it gotten them ??? You reap what you sow !!!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Exactly ! Not one point in history have the Palestinians ruled any of the land known today as Israel (formerly British Mandate of Palestine) .It meant nothing to the Palestinians until the Jews started to build a homeland for themselves. The place was mostly an arid wasteland an desert.
Too little too late for the Palestinians if you ask me. They've had so many opportunities to have a legit State, but, you know the rest .....

Irrelevant.

They've had so many opportunities to have a legit State, but, you know the rest .....

Not once.

VERY relevant !

And yes, there have been offers made to thew Palestinians which included 97% of the West Bank. They refused. They could have had a state 10 times over by now. But instead, they chose the path violence, and where has it gotten them ??? You reap what you sow !!!

The only offer ever made to the Palestinians was to give most of their country to Israel.

Such a deal!

 

[toastman]

Irrelevant.



Not once.

VERY relevant !

And yes, there have been offers made to thew Palestinians which included 97% of the West Bank. They refused. They could have had a state 10 times over by now. But instead, they chose the path violence, and where has it gotten them ??? You reap what you sow !!!

The only offer ever made to the Palestinians was to give most of their country to Israel.

Such a deal!

That makes no sense, since they have no country.
Ah well, let them reject the offers. They are the ones losing, not Israel.

 

[toastman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1N1zhUm84w]The great Palestinian lie - YouTube[/ame]