The definitive documents of the 1948 war

[P F Tinmore]

You presented a claim ('There was no civil war - it is Israeli propaganda') and failed to prove it , hence you have no case.

Your claim is based on false premise. You have failed to prove your point.

I don't need to prove anything , the burden of proof is on you.

It's a fact that the war was going on between 2 factions.
It's a fact that both of the factions were residing in the same mandate.
There is nothing false here. And that is the definition of civil war.

You tried to refute that , failed to do so , and now here we are...
My point is proven while yours is not.

Not really.

If Mexico were to send busloads of Mexicans into the US with money to by property. And send in truckloads of guns to give them when they got here. And there was a written plan to take over the south west that was leaked to the Americans.

Would the ensuing war be a civil war, or an invasion where the people of the US were defending their country?

 

[Wolverine1984]

Your claim is based on false premise. You have failed to prove your point.

I don't need to prove anything , the burden of proof is on you.

It's a fact that the war was going on between 2 factions.
It's a fact that both of the factions were residing in the same mandate.
There is nothing false here. And that is the definition of civil war.

You tried to refute that , failed to do so , and now here we are...
My point is proven while yours is not.

Not really.

If Mexico were to send busloads of Mexicans into the US with money to by property. And send in truckloads of guns to give them when they got here. And there was a written plan to take over the south west that was leaked to the Americans.

Would the ensuing war be a civil war, or an invasion where the people of the US were defending their country?

Oh, you mean like what happening now in Europe ? The huge waves of Muslims immigrating to European countries ?
That's an Invasion ??? Really ???
So in your opinion the European citizens should attack those Muslims,right ? Because they need to 'Protect their country from invasion' ...

In addition:
Your analogy has no place in reality , first of all Mexico and USA are sovereign states , while there is no states called Palestine or Zion. (So it is impossible for one to invade the other.).

Second, The US owns all US land , Palestinians did not own all the land in Palestine. Jews bought land from it's owners and settled there, the Arabs did not like it very much and tension began to rise, but the fact is that Jews had the same right to live in the land they own as the Palestinians had the right to live the land that they own ...

If the US was a British mandate ,and Mexicans were settling in a property they legally bought and payed for, both they and the US residents are now under the same mandate , and any war between them is civil war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't need to prove anything , the burden of proof is on you.

It's a fact that the war was going on between 2 factions.
It's a fact that both of the factions were residing in the same mandate.
There is nothing false here. And that is the definition of civil war.

You tried to refute that , failed to do so , and now here we are...
My point is proven while yours is not.

Not really.

If Mexico were to send busloads of Mexicans into the US with money to by property. And send in truckloads of guns to give them when they got here. And there was a written plan to take over the south west that was leaked to the Americans.

Would the ensuing war be a civil war, or an invasion where the people of the US were defending their country?

Oh, you mean like what happening now in Europe ? The huge waves of Muslims immigrating to European countries ?
That's an Invasion ??? Really ???
So in your opinion the European citizens should attack those Muslims,right ? Because they need to 'Protect their country from invasion' ...

No, but they can control their immigration policies. They can cut off immigration any time they want. Palestine's immigration policies were set by foreigners against their wishes.

In addition:
Your analogy has no place in reality , first of all Mexico and USA are sovereign states , while there is no states called Palestine or Zion. (So it is impossible for one to invade the other.).

The Palestinians were the rightful inhabitants inside Palestine's borders. The Zionists were foreigners with no rights in Palestine.

Second, The US owns all US land , Palestinians did not own all the land in Palestine. Jews bought land from it's owners and settled there, the Arabs did not like it very much and tension began to rise, but the fact is that Jews had the same right to live in the land they own as the Palestinians had the right to live the land that they own ...

That is correct. The Jews did own land in Palestine, (about 7% by 1947) And they did and still do have the right to live in Palestine. However it was still Palestinian land, Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.

If the US was a British mandate ,and Mexicans were settling in a property they legally bought and payed for, both they and the US residents are now under the same mandate , and any war between them is civil war.

Call it what you wish, it was still the Palestinians defending their country from foreign takeover. The World Zionist Organization was and still is a foreign organization. The imported settlers were merely pawns in this planned takeover.

 

[Wolverine1984]

not really.

If mexico were to send busloads of mexicans into the us with money to by property. And send in truckloads of guns to give them when they got here. And there was a written plan to take over the south west that was leaked to the americans.

Would the ensuing war be a civil war, or an invasion where the people of the us were defending their country?

oh, you mean like what happening now in europe ? The huge waves of muslims immigrating to european countries ?
That's an invasion ??? Really ???
So in your opinion the european citizens should attack those muslims,right ? Because they need to 'protect their country from invasion' ...

no, but they can control their immigration policies. They can cut off immigration any time they want. Palestine's immigration policies were set by foreigners against their wishes. <== Palestine's immigration policies were set by it's governing body. And it wasn't set by Palestine because it was not a state. (Thank you for proving that Palestine was not a state.)

in addition:
Your analogy has no place in reality , first of all mexico and usa are sovereign states , while there is no states called palestine or zion. (so it is impossible for one to invade the other.).

the palestinians were the rightful inhabitants inside palestine's borders. The zionists were foreigners with no rights in palestine. <== The zionists lived in the land they owned and had every right to it , Just like the Palestinians had the right to the land they owned. So your argument about them 'having no rights' is false.

second, the us owns all us land , palestinians did not own all the land in palestine. Jews bought land from it's owners and settled there, the arabs did not like it very much and tension began to rise, but the fact is that jews had the same right to live in the land they own as the palestinians had the right to live the land that they own ...

that is correct. The jews did own land in palestine, (about 7% by 1947) and they did and still do have the right to live in palestine. However it was still palestinian land, jews own land in the us and it is still us land. <== Yeah the land belongs to the US (A state) Palestine were not a state.
Moreover by your analogy no matter who buys the land it belongs to the governing body so what you are saying is that both the Jewish owned land and the Palestinian owned land belonged to the mandate, and not the Palestinians as you claim.

By the way , Jews maybe owned about 7% of the land , but the remainder of the land 93% were not owned by Palestinians !

if the us was a british mandate ,and mexicans were settling in a property they legally bought and payed for, both they and the us residents are now under the same mandate , and any war between them is civil war.

call it what you wish, it was still the palestinians defending their country from foreign takeover. The world zionist organization was and still is a foreign organization. The imported settlers were merely pawns in this planned takeover.

You can call it what you want , but when two factions from the same mandate are in a war, it's a civil war by definition. And FYI often in civil wars the plan of both of the factions is takeover.

Side note: don't split the post into many quotes , for some reason the system here doesn't like it ... Just write inside the quote.

 

[P F Tinmore]

no, but they can control their immigration policies. They can cut off immigration any time they want. Palestine's immigration policies were set by foreigners against their wishes. <== Palestine's immigration policies were set by it's governing body. And it wasn't set by Palestine because it was not a state. (Thank you for proving that Palestine was not a state.)
the palestinians were the rightful inhabitants inside palestine's borders. The zionists were foreigners with no rights in palestine. <== The zionists lived in the land they owned and had every right to it , Just like the Palestinians had the right to the land they owned. So your argument about them 'having no rights' is false.

that is correct. The jews did own land in palestine, (about 7% by 1947) and they did and still do have the right to live in palestine. However it was still palestinian land, jews own land in the us and it is still us land. <== Yeah the land belongs to the US (A state) Palestine were not a state.
Moreover by your analogy no matter who buys the land it belongs to the governing body so what you are saying is that both the Jewish owned land and the Palestinian owned land belonged to the mandate, and not the Palestinians as you claim.

By the way , Jews maybe owned about 7% of the land , but the remainder of the land 93% were not owned by Palestinians !

if the us was a british mandate ,and mexicans were settling in a property they legally bought and payed for, both they and the us residents are now under the same mandate , and any war between them is civil war.

call it what you wish, it was still the palestinians defending their country from foreign takeover. The world zionist organization was and still is a foreign organization. The imported settlers were merely pawns in this planned takeover.

You can call it what you want , but when two factions from the same mandate are in a war, it's a civil war by definition. And FYI often in civil wars the plan of both of the factions is takeover.

Side note: don't split the post into many quotes , for some reason the system here doesn't like it ... Just write inside the quote.

OK, but when one of those factions are foreigners, it is not a civil war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

so what you are saying is that both the Jewish owned land and the Palestinian owned land belonged to the mandate,

The mandate never claimed ownership.

Mandates were strictly assistant positions.

 

[Wolverine1984]

OK, but when one of those factions are foreigners, it is not a civil war.

They are not foreigners if they reside under the same mandate.

so what you are saying is that both the Jewish owned land and the Palestinian owned land belonged to the mandate,

The mandate never claimed ownership.

Mandates were strictly assistant positions.

So you say , but with no proof.
And if that is true , then the Jewish owned land belonged to the Jews and the Arab owned land belonged to the Arabs.
You can't have it both ways.

And what the hell , are you and I the only people on this thread ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, but when one of those factions are foreigners, it is not a civil war.

They are not foreigners if they reside under the same mandate.

so what you are saying is that both the Jewish owned land and the Palestinian owned land belonged to the mandate,

The mandate never claimed ownership.

Mandates were strictly assistant positions.

So you say , but with no proof.
And if that is true , then the Jewish owned land belonged to the Jews and the Arab owned land belonged to the Arabs.
You can't have it both ways.

And what the hell , are you and I the only people on this thread ?

I never said that Jewish owned land did not belong to the Jews. Jews have the right to own land in Palestine and to use that land to their benefit.

I have never said otherwise.