The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Status
Not open for further replies.
History of Israel Stolen Land of Palestine by Ilan Pappe


[ Tinmore's HERO }

At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.

(full article online)

The Liar as Hero

Again who put every possible obstacle for Jews to become a majority during the Aliyah period?
Arabs, Turks and Brits.

If Arab immigration was treated anywhere as the Jewish one this would put groups in similar terms,
Arabs had no problem with immigration of of Muslims from Bosnia or Egypt, but when Jews from Baghdad, Morocco, Greece and Yemen immigrated they were viewed as a special category, with less rights at the Arab request.

In total opposition to what was the initial policy of the mandate,
regarding both sides of the river. Jews were banned from presence in most of the land and becoming a natural majority while Arabs were freely moving from neighboring countries.
 
The word “Nakba” though, has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli war in 1948. The prominent Arab historian George Antonius coined the term already in 1920, almost three decades before David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the existence of the first Jewish state in 2000 years.

Antonius who was a passionate Arab nationalist, coined the term “Nakba” as a response to the separation of the British Mandate Palestine from French-controlled Syria. The reason that Antonius considered this territorial division between Britain and France to constitute a “disaster” was that he defined himself and the local Arab population in the British Palestine Mandate as Syrians and an inseparable part of greater Syria.


zryfvswq-1404224957.jpg


Like other Arab nationalists of his time, Antonius was by no means sympathetic towards Jews or the Zionist Jewish national liberation movement. However, as far as Antonius and other local Arab nationalists were concerned, places like Jerusalem, Yafo and Haifa were not located in “Palestine” but constituted the southern part of Syria. Antonius was certainly not the only Arab intellectual who rejected the notion of “Palestine”.

Already in 1919, the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem to elect local representatives for the international Peace Conference in Paris. During the meeting, the following resolution was adopted by local Arab leaders:

“We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds.”

Fast-forward to 1937 when the local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi addressed the British Peel commission, which suggested a partition of the British Palestine Mandate:

“There is no such country (as Palestine)! “Palestine is a term that the Zionist invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”

In 1946, the prominent Arab-American Princeton professor Philip Hitti, testified against partition to the Anglo-American Committee with the following candid statement: “There is no such thing as “Palestine” in history, absolutely not.”

Arab leaders’ candid remarks on “Palestine” continued after the establishment of Israel. In an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, the senior PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen addressed the issue of a “Palestinian people”: “Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of ONE people, the Arab nation. Look, I have family members with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are ONE people. Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity.”

Despite serious political differences with PLO, Hamas has also admitted the cosmopolitan nature of the local Arab population west of the Jordan River. During an interview with Al-Hekma TV, Hamas Minister of the Interior, Fathi Hammad sought pan-Arab support by stressing their blood ties: “Half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.”

Ironically, it was a non-Arab who paved the way to the current inversion of the Nakba term as equaling alleged Arab suffering at Jewish hands. In his major work “A Study of History”, the anti-Semitic British historian Arnold Toynbee compared Israel’s treatment of the Arabs during the 1948 war with the Nazi extermination of the Jews. The same Toynbee, who after the Second World War demonized Zionist Jews as “Nazis”, willingly accepted a private interview with Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 1936.


(full article online)

Real ”Nakba” Debunks ”Palestine” Myth
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ Sixties Fan, et al,

Thanks very much → "Sixties Fan" for pointing to this article, I found it well worth the time to read.
MIDA News Journal said:
Hamas’ “March of Return” was cynically fueled by the powerful Nakba myth. Ironically, the original meaning of Nakba debunks the myth of a distinct Arab nation in the Land of Israel.

Yes, this article is probably one of the better articles I've seen on the "Current Event." The algemeiner lists a number of articles written by Daniel Krygier ; who is not only a journalist and author
→ but more of a contemporary writer of his day.

Ironically, it was a non-Arab who paved the way to the current inversion of the Nakba term as equaling alleged Arab suffering at Jewish hands. In his major work “A Study of History”, the anti-Semitic British historian Arnold Toynbee compared Israel’s treatment of the Arabs during the 1948 war with the Nazi extermination of the Jews. The same Toynbee, who after the Second World War demonized Zionist Jews as “Nazis”, willingly accepted a private interview with Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 1936.

Real ”Nakba” Debunks ”Palestine” Myth
(COMMENT)

Journalists often are motivated to interview monsters, NAZIs, demons, pedophiles, serial killers and all manner of jihadists, just for a story; but → Professor AJ Toynbee was more the armchair historian who you would find haunting those dark and eerie library stacks of old books. The Professor will latch onto an idea → and like a rabid dog with lockjaw → will not let go.

ANY WAY, the article was a great contribution by "Sixties Fan."

Most Respectfully,
R
 
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
 
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
It might help if one could actually understand what the Arab Nakba is and when it actually began, and why.

What is the difference between what the Arabs called the Nakba in 1920, and what the called the Nakba in 1948?

Why do they not mention the Nakba of 1920?
 
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
It might help if one could actually understand what the Arab Nakba is and when it actually began, and why.

What is the difference between what the Arabs called the Nakba in 1920, and what the called the Nakba in 1948?

Why do they not mention the Nakba of 1920?
It is their narrative, it is up to them to define it, not us.
 
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
It might help if one could actually understand what the Arab Nakba is and when it actually began, and why.

What is the difference between what the Arabs called the Nakba in 1920, and what the called the Nakba in 1948?

Why do they not mention the Nakba of 1920?
It is their narrative, it is up to them to define it, not us.
Narrative is different from history. Which is what the two dates show. It is history of their usage of the word.
Both dates have meanings, but only one is used by the Muslims.


The main issue being that the Arab Muslims are also very intent in defining what the Jewish narrative is, what Zionism means, who is indigenous, etc etc.....

They want to define their "narrative", never mind their history, and then define Jewish history, saying that it is also a narrative.
 
The Jewish people rejected ancient Greece, ancient Rome, Christianity, and Islam thus providing impetus to find fault with the Jewish people which quickly morphed into outright persecution. Modern Jew-hate is no different, that too is a reaction to a people who retain their “otherness”, sticking to their morals, values, and nationhood when socialist/globalist influences imply that it is wrong to do so.

“Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorned.”

The Jewish people began returning to Zion as soon as they could.

My grandmother grew up in British Mandate Palestine (a name given twice to this land in attempt to disconnect the Jews from Zion, a name that is now being used again, for the same reason). As a young girl she felt the cruel ambivalence of British soldiers who laughed as she, just 12 years old, was running for her life, trying to escape an Arab lynch mob. Instead of helping her, they took bets on the odds of the child being able to outrun the men chasing her with knives in their hands.

The day after the State of Israel was officially declared the Arabs of the land rose up in attempt to destroy the newly birthed country. Everyone was surprised when they did not succeed.

(full article online)

We won’t play that game anymore
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ Coyote, et al,

I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides. And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions. Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace. In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" (preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks) is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians (not the Israelis).

No matter what the Israelis (or the entire world) may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance. The past cannot be changed.
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
(COMMENT)

Pre-Conditions thus far also include:

✪ Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
✪ East Jerusalem as its capital.
✪ Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.

(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)

Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades. The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries (the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II). The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties. The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...

The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.

The release of twelve -- hundred would fly in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon. And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope." [A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]

I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
Arab residents of eastern Jerusalem petitioned the Supreme Court on Sunday to reverse a lower court decision affirming the rights of Jewish owners over property in the Silwan neighborhood of the capital.

In the late 1800s, Jewish immigrants from Yemen were settled on land in the old Shiloach (Silwan) area of Jerusalem, near the Old City. The land was purchased on their behalf by Jewish donors, managed by the Benvenisti Trust.

During the 1948 War of Independence, the Jordanian Arab Legion expelled the Jewish residents of eastern Jerusalem, including the families living on property owned by the Benvenisti Trust.

Since the 1980s, the Ateret Cohanim organization has sought to redeem property in and around the Old City, including real estate owned by Jews but occupied by Arabs following the 1948 war.

While Ateret Cohanim has managed to recover some of the property taken from Jewish residents in 1948, lengthy legal battles have hampered efforts to redeem homes owned by the Benvenisti Trust.

One section of Silwan (Shiloach), known as the Batan al-Hawa area, was owned by the trust, which through Ateret Cohanim sought to remove Arab squatters from its properties.

A decision by the Justice Ministry sixteen years ago affirmed the Benvenisti Trust’s ownership of the property, which was released to Ateret Cohanim. Despite appeals by the squatters, lower court rulings have upheld the Justice Ministry’s decision.

(full article online)

J'lem Arabs demand court award them ownership of Jewish land
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ Coyote, et al,

I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides. And it seems to me that the Israeilis never treat eith the people or the conflict as a trrivial or insignificant set of conditions. Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace. In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognize that the "default" (preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks) is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians (not the Israelis).

No matter what the Israelis (or the entire world) may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance. The past cannot be changed.
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
(COMMENT)

Pre-Conditions thus far also include:

✪ Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
✪ East Jerusalem as its capital.
✪ Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.

(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)

Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades. The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries (the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II). The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties. The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...

The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.

The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheezefrom the moon. And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope." [A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]

I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.

Most Respectfully,
R
The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ Coyote, et al,

OH, this is foolish. First, I did not say anything about winning or losing.

I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides. And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions. Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace. In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" (preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks) is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians (not the Israelis).

No matter what the Israelis (or the entire world) may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance. The past cannot be changed.
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
(COMMENT)

Pre-Conditions thus far also include:

✪ Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
✪ East Jerusalem as its capital.
✪ Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.

(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)

Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades. The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries (the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II). The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties. The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...

The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.

The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon. And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope." [A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]

I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.

Most Respectfully,
R
The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
(COMMENT)

You've read the treaty. AND You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.

What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel. I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them. (If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)

So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ Coyote, et al,

OH, this is foolish. First, I did not say anything about winning or losing.

I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides. And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions. Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace. In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" (preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks) is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians (not the Israelis).

No matter what the Israelis (or the entire world) may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance. The past cannot be changed.
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
(COMMENT)

Pre-Conditions thus far also include:

✪ Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
✪ East Jerusalem as its capital.
✪ Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.

(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)

Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades. The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries (the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II). The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties. The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...

The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.

The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon. And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope." [A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]

I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.

Most Respectfully,
R
The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
(COMMENT)

You've read the treaty. AND You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.

What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel. I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them. (If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)

So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???

Most Respectfully,
R
Umh Rocco...that isnt my post...
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ Coyote, et al,

OH, this is foolish. First, I did not say anything about winning or losing.

I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides. And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions. Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace. In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" (preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks) is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians (not the Israelis).

No matter what the Israelis (or the entire world) may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance. The past cannot be changed.
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
(COMMENT)

Pre-Conditions thus far also include:

✪ Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
✪ East Jerusalem as its capital.
✪ Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.

(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)

Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades. The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries (the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II). The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties. The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...

The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.

The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon. And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope." [A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]

I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.

Most Respectfully,
R
The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
(COMMENT)

You've read the treaty. AND You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.

What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel. I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them. (If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)

So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???

Most Respectfully,
R
You've read the treaty.
What treaty gave Palestinian land to Israel?
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ Coyote, et al,

OH, this is foolish. First, I did not say anything about winning or losing.

I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides. And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions. Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace. In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" (preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks) is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians (not the Israelis).

No matter what the Israelis (or the entire world) may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance. The past cannot be changed.
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
(COMMENT)

Pre-Conditions thus far also include:

✪ Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
✪ East Jerusalem as its capital.
✪ Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.

(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)

Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades. The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries (the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II). The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties. The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...

The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.

The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon. And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope." [A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]

I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.

Most Respectfully,
R
The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
(COMMENT)

You've read the treaty. AND You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.

What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel. I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them. (If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)

So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???

Most Respectfully,
R
You've read the treaty.
What treaty gave Palestinian land to Israel?
It was Jewish Land, for over 3000 years.

Try another one of your catchy tunes.
 
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ Coyote, et al,

OH, this is foolish. First, I did not say anything about winning or losing.

I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides. And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions. Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace. In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" (preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks) is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians (not the Israelis).

No matter what the Israelis (or the entire world) may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance. The past cannot be changed.
The Nakba myth? That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians. Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
(COMMENT)

Pre-Conditions thus far also include:

✪ Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
✪ East Jerusalem as its capital.
✪ Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.

(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)

Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades. The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries (the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II). The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties. The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...

The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.

The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon. And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope." [A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]

I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.

Most Respectfully,
R
The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
(COMMENT)

You've read the treaty. AND You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.

What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel. I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them. (If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)

So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???

Most Respectfully,
R
You've read the treaty.
What treaty gave Palestinian land to Israel?

Why, "Palestinians" doesn't mean Jews as well?
Palestinian Jews gave their lands, property and full support to Israel.
Leaders of the Jews in the land all participated in the creation of the state.

The treaty is circumcision and keeping the laws of the land.
 
Last edited:
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have this backwards.

UK Government said:
UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT
The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.

What treaty gave Palestinian land to Israel?

(COMMENT)

It was NOT "Palestinian Land." (This ownership claim is often made by pro-Palestinians.) The Armistice Argeements were between the belligerents. The peace treaties cover those engagements.

All Arab Palestinians want to box-up the treaties, because they have explicite findings on the International boundaries.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top