The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Phoenall]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

WRONG as it was not mentioned in the treaty of Lausanne, in fact it was not mentioned other than as an area in which the Jewish national home was to be built. The arab muslim refused to be part of this and as such lost the right to live in Jewish Palestine. The Jews now have a defined nationality under International law, within defined borders and have the right to self determination without external influence.

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO WIPE OUT THE JEWS, DESTROY THEIR NATION AND REMOVE THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION AS DEFINED BY THE U.N. CHARTER WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

WRONG as it was not mentioned in the treaty of Lausanne, in fact it was not mentioned other than as an area in which the Jewish national home was to be built. The arab muslim refused to be part of this and as such lost the right to live in Jewish Palestine. The Jews now have a defined nationality under International law, within defined borders and have the right to self determination without external influence.

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO WIPE OUT THE JEWS, DESTROY THEIR NATION AND REMOVE THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION AS DEFINED BY THE U.N. CHARTER WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Of course you can't prove any of that.

 

[Phoenall]

The Jews were to live in Palestine, with the Palestinians, as Palestinian citizens.

There was nothing about Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive rights.

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

To develop their own governments and nations free from outside influence. You always bang on about the arab muslims rights yet ignore the rights of the Jews to their free determination and a nation of their own.

The big deal is the arab muslims can not be trusted to act fairly in such matters and would have wiped out the Jewish portion of Palestine by now.

A very small number of Jews lived there with their Muslim and Christian neighbors for hundreds of years. If they wanted to wipe out the Jews it would have been cake.

Not according to history or the muslims own accounts. You have heard of the Pact of Umar and the Dhimmi laws that set out the terms of the Jews and Christians slavery in the Islamic lands. How literally thousands of Jews and Christians were forced to convert or die to swell the ranks of the islamonazi armies. If they wanted to live in peace then the Jews would have numbered in their 100's of 1,000,000's and had lands of their own. Lands where they could worship their God openly, build temples in his honour, ride white stallions and live without fear.

SO WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE JEWS LEFT AFTER THE CONQUEST BY THE ROMAN LEGIONS ?

 

[Phoenall]

Yes, only one group had the right to self-determination. The inhabitants of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant of the League of Nations pursuant to Article 22. Not people living in Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

That did not include those that had taken part in the war on the side of the Ottomans, as they lost any rights they had to any lands they had

The treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne that you have been given thousands of times in the past. Don't you bother to read them, is that why you stupidly ask for them all the time

I have. they just don't say what you think.

Actually it is you that has the problem understanding what they say, I read them and see that the Ottomans and their allies lost the war and had to give up large parts of the empire as reparations. The treaty then set in stone the Balfour declaration and stated that the mandatory ( Britain) would be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.



SO WHY DO YOU DENY THE FACTS AND CLAIM NO SUCH TERMS WERE AGREED

 

[Phoenall]

Even if this is true (and its obviously not), as you continually point out -- the INTENT of the Mandate was to allow the inhabitants to develop their own governments and their own independence. That includes ALL the inhabitants. Even if the intent was for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to co-govern a bi-national state, that's not the way it fell out. Each group wants its own self-determination. The two are essentially incompatible.

So what's the big deal about giving it to both of them?

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

WRONG as it was not mentioned in the treaty of Lausanne, in fact it was not mentioned other than as an area in which the Jewish national home was to be built. The arab muslim refused to be part of this and as such lost the right to live in Jewish Palestine. The Jews now have a defined nationality under International law, within defined borders and have the right to self determination without external influence.

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO WIPE OUT THE JEWS, DESTROY THEIR NATION AND REMOVE THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION AS DEFINED BY THE U.N. CHARTER WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Of course you can't prove any of that.

But I can and have by posting the treaty of Lausanne in full that does not mention Palestine once. And the same treaty states that the ottomans and their allies ( arab muslims under the Grand Mufti ) lost the war and as such lost the right to own the land. All there in the full treaties that you ignore when they work in the Jews favour

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, only one group had the right to self-determination. The inhabitants of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant of the League of Nations pursuant to Article 22. Not people living in Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

That did not include those that had taken part in the war on the side of the Ottomans, as they lost any rights they had to any lands they had

The treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne that you have been given thousands of times in the past. Don't you bother to read them, is that why you stupidly ask for them all the time

I have. they just don't say what you think.

Actually it is you that has the problem understanding what they say, I read them and see that the Ottomans and their allies lost the war and had to give up large parts of the empire as reparations. The treaty then set in stone the Balfour declaration and stated that the mandatory ( Britain) would be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.



SO WHY DO YOU DENY THE FACTS AND CLAIM NO SUCH TERMS WERE AGREED

stated that the mandatory ( Britain) would be responsible for putting into effect the declaration

And they failed. What is your point?​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Giving what to both of them?

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

WRONG as it was not mentioned in the treaty of Lausanne, in fact it was not mentioned other than as an area in which the Jewish national home was to be built. The arab muslim refused to be part of this and as such lost the right to live in Jewish Palestine. The Jews now have a defined nationality under International law, within defined borders and have the right to self determination without external influence.

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO WIPE OUT THE JEWS, DESTROY THEIR NATION AND REMOVE THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION AS DEFINED BY THE U.N. CHARTER WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Of course you can't prove any of that.

But I can and have by posting the treaty of Lausanne in full that does not mention Palestine once. And the same treaty states that the ottomans and their allies ( arab muslims under the Grand Mufti ) lost the war and as such lost the right to own the land. All there in the full treaties that you ignore when they work in the Jews favour

And the same treaty states that the ottomans and their allies ( arab muslims under the Grand Mufti ) lost the war and as such lost the right to own the land.​

Where does it say that?

 

[Shusha]

Correct. A Jewish Frenchman can convert to Catholicism and he remains a Frenchman.

And he remains Jewish.

Just because a rabbi says so? He may still be considered "Jewish" because of some religous dogma, but if his ancestors were ethnically French, he remains French.

And if his ancestors were ethnically Jewish, he remains Jewish.

 

[Phoenall]

That did not include those that had taken part in the war on the side of the Ottomans, as they lost any rights they had to any lands they had

The treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne that you have been given thousands of times in the past. Don't you bother to read them, is that why you stupidly ask for them all the time

I have. they just don't say what you think.

Actually it is you that has the problem understanding what they say, I read them and see that the Ottomans and their allies lost the war and had to give up large parts of the empire as reparations. The treaty then set in stone the Balfour declaration and stated that the mandatory ( Britain) would be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.



SO WHY DO YOU DENY THE FACTS AND CLAIM NO SUCH TERMS WERE AGREED

stated that the mandatory ( Britain) would be responsible for putting into effect the declaration

And they failed. What is your point?​

They did not fail they succeeded in putting in place the declaration of November 2 1917, and the Jewish National home was brought into existence on May 15 1948


Or are you now denying the existence of the Jewish national home ?

 

[Shusha]

Mormons, Quakers, etc. are considered and consider themselves religious groups, just like Jewish people did throughout their history until the advent of Zionism, which as a nationalist irridentist ideology created the dogma that "Jewish People" were an ancient ethnicity exiled from their "homeland" and destined to return there; a perversion of Jewish religious belief...

If Quakers and the Amish don't consider themselves national groups at this time, nor an ethnicity, then they are missing one of the key markers for being a people or ethnic group, which is self-identification.

Zionism did not pop up out of the blue in the late 1800's. Its existed in various and changing forms for thousands of years. We've been over this before. Still boring.

You have yet to provide a criteria for determining which groups are peoples or ethnic groups and which must be excluded from that designation.

Palestine gets by on self-identification, a slightly different pronunciation of a single letter of the alphabet, and slight regional variations in embroidery patterns on female garments.

 

[Phoenall]

National self-determination. A nation for each of them.

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

WRONG as it was not mentioned in the treaty of Lausanne, in fact it was not mentioned other than as an area in which the Jewish national home was to be built. The arab muslim refused to be part of this and as such lost the right to live in Jewish Palestine. The Jews now have a defined nationality under International law, within defined borders and have the right to self determination without external influence.

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO WIPE OUT THE JEWS, DESTROY THEIR NATION AND REMOVE THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION AS DEFINED BY THE U.N. CHARTER WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Of course you can't prove any of that.

But I can and have by posting the treaty of Lausanne in full that does not mention Palestine once. And the same treaty states that the ottomans and their allies ( arab muslims under the Grand Mufti ) lost the war and as such lost the right to own the land. All there in the full treaties that you ignore when they work in the Jews favour

And the same treaty states that the ottomans and their allies ( arab muslims under the Grand Mufti ) lost the war and as such lost the right to own the land.​

Where does it say that?

Treaty of Sevres, 1920




2. With Syria:
From a point to be chosen on the eastern bank of the outlet of the Hassan Dede, about 3 kilometres north-west of Karatash Bu- run, north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 1 kilometre north of Babeli, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Karatash; thence to Kesik Kale, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
thence north-eastwards to a point to be chosen on the Djaihun Irmak about 15 kilometres east-southeast of Karsbazar, a line to be fixed on the ground passing north of Kara Tepe;
thence to the bend in the Djaihun Irmak situated west of Duldul Dagh, the course of the Djaihun Irmak upstream;
thence in a general south-easterly direction to a point to be chosen on Emir Musi Dagh about 15 kilometres south-south-west of Giaour Geul a line to be fixed on the ground at a distance of about 18 kilometres from the railway, and leaving Duldul Dagh to Syria;
thence eastwards to a point to be chosen about 5 kilometres north of Urfa a generally straight line from west to east to be hxed on the ground passing north of the roads connecting the towns of Bagh- che, Aintab, Biridjik, and Urfa and leaving the last three named towns to Syria;
thence eastwards to the south-western extremity of the bend in the Tigris about 6 kilometres north of Azekh (27 kilometres west of Djezire-ibn-Omar), a generally straight line from west to east to be fixed on the ground leaving the town of Mardin to Syria;
thence to a point to be chosen on the Tigris between the point of confluence of the Khabur Su with the Tigris and the bend in the Tigris situated about 10 kilometres north of this point,
the course of the Tigris downstream, leaving the island on which is situated the town of Djezire-ibn-Omar to Syria.

3. With Mesopotamia:
Thence in a general easterly direction to a point to be chosen on the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul,
a line to be fixed on the ground;
thence eastwards to the point where it meets the frontier between Turkey and Persia,
the northern boundary of the vilayet of Mosul, modified, however, so as to pass south of Amadia.
4. On the East and the North East:
From the point above defined to the Black Sea, the existing frontier between

 

[Shusha]

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

There were two distinct groups of citizens living in the Mandate territory. One of those groups was granted explicit right to reconstitute their national home there based on recognition of a pre-existing historical right to it. That would be the Jewish people, explicitly mentioned in all sorts of documents of the era.

Now, I'm arguing for BOTH peoples rights.

What is your reason for excluding the rights of the Jewish people, especially in light of the explicit documentation?

 

[Challenger]

Zionism did not pop up out of the blue in the late 1800's.

Correct, it didn't. It was invented by English Protestant religious fanatics in the 17th century called Puritans.

 

[montelatici]

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

There were two distinct groups of citizens living in the Mandate territory. One of those groups was granted explicit right to reconstitute their national home there based on recognition of a pre-existing historical right to it. That would be the Jewish people, explicitly mentioned in all sorts of documents of the era.

Now, I'm arguing for BOTH peoples rights.

What is your reason for excluding the rights of the Jewish people, especially in light of the explicit documentation?

There were not two distinct groups. There was one group entitled to self-determination, the native inhabitants, that practiced several religions. A tiny minority were Arab Jews.

Europeans, regardless of adopted religion, did not have any "pre-existing" rights to Palestine, where do you get that idea.

 

[Challenger]

Correct. A Jewish Frenchman can convert to Catholicism and he remains a Frenchman.

And he remains Jewish.

Just because a rabbi says so? He may still be considered "Jewish" because of some religous dogma, but if his ancestors were ethnically French, he remains French.

And if his ancestors were ethnically Jewish, he remains Jewish.

..except there's no such thing as a "Jewish ethnicity"outside of Zionist dogma, although I'd be prepared accept "Judean" if he could prove his ancestors came from the Judean hills (which would make him a Palestinian), as opposed to the Massif Centrale, or the Voges.

 

[Challenger]

Europeans, regardless of adopted religion, did not have any "pre-existing" rights to Palestine, where do you get that idea.

It's a Protestant belief based on the Bible. Most British politicians in the late 19th early 20th century were men of religion and believed the Bible was a historical document. That, and the fact they were "racists" The Races of Men: 19th century racial theory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

There were two distinct groups of citizens living in the Mandate territory. One of those groups was granted explicit right to reconstitute their national home there based on recognition of a pre-existing historical right to it. That would be the Jewish people, explicitly mentioned in all sorts of documents of the era.

Now, I'm arguing for BOTH peoples rights.

What is your reason for excluding the rights of the Jewish people, especially in light of the explicit documentation?

How do you fit that into my post?

 

[Phoenall]

Zionism did not pop up out of the blue in the late 1800's.

Correct, it didn't. It was invented by English Protestant religious fanatics in the 17th century called Puritans.

What about the version that was around in 70C.E. then, or don't you want to go back that far. Would your prefer the version that was around in 635 C.E. that mo'mad spouted greatly.

 

[Phoenall]

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

There were two distinct groups of citizens living in the Mandate territory. One of those groups was granted explicit right to reconstitute their national home there based on recognition of a pre-existing historical right to it. That would be the Jewish people, explicitly mentioned in all sorts of documents of the era.

Now, I'm arguing for BOTH peoples rights.

What is your reason for excluding the rights of the Jewish people, especially in light of the explicit documentation?

There were not two distinct groups. There was one group entitled to self-determination, the native inhabitants, that practiced several religions. A tiny minority were Arab Jews.

Europeans, regardless of adopted religion, did not have any "pre-existing" rights to Palestine, where do you get that idea.

And a bigger group were non arab Jews that had lived there for 4,500 years. If they were arab then they were recent arrivals

 

[Hollie]

OK, so we have Palestine, a successor state broken from Turkish rule by the treaty of Lausanne and international borders were defined by post war treaties. According to the Treaty of Lausanne, international and domestic law, the Palestinians obtained the nationality of Palestinian and became citizens of that defined territory. As citizens of Palestine they have the right to self determination without external interference, etc, as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

OK, your turn.

There were two distinct groups of citizens living in the Mandate territory. One of those groups was granted explicit right to reconstitute their national home there based on recognition of a pre-existing historical right to it. That would be the Jewish people, explicitly mentioned in all sorts of documents of the era.

Now, I'm arguing for BOTH peoples rights.

What is your reason for excluding the rights of the Jewish people, especially in light of the explicit documentation?

There were not two distinct groups. There was one group entitled to self-determination, the native inhabitants, that practiced several religions. A tiny minority were Arab Jews.

Europeans, regardless of adopted religion, did not have any "pre-existing" rights to Palestine, where do you get that idea.

Other than to calm an emotional requirement that furthers your insensate Jooooooo hatreds, there's no reason to accept that the Turk invaders / colonists and later the Egyptian, Lebanese and Syrian squatters / occupiers had exclusive rights to the land.