What Kind of State in Israel?

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I have a different take on reality.

--- that is "P F Tinmores" argument that the Palestinian lost autonomy and sovereignty, that somehow, Palestine was the domain under the control of the Palestinian.

The problem with your assessment is that when Palestine, and other states, were carved out of the defunct empire the rights did not go to the people who actually lived there but to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

(COMMENT)

I would not call the Allied Command Europe (ACE) or the League of Nations a "bunch of criminals out of Europe;" but, that is just me.

Allied Command Europe - a major strategic headquarters of NATO; safeguards an area extending from Norway to Turkey.​

Q: Which one of these doesn't belong with the others?

a: Israel --- Independence: 14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
b: Iraq --- Independence: 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
c: Jordan --- Independence: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
d: Kuwait --- Independence: 19 June 1961 (from the UK)
e: Lebanon --- Independence: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
f: Palestine --- Not Independent
g: Saudi Arabia --- Independence: 23 September 1932 (Unification of the Kingdom)
h: Syria --- Independence: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
​

ANSWER: "F" The Palestine Order in Council: - LINK - Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order (10 August 1922)​

Every country, all the way around Palestine, managed to create a nation for themselves, except for the Palestinian (one can only ask what was wrong with the Palestinians); with the clarification: Saudi Arabia, which unified itself by internal means, and Kuwait (formerly the Arab Court of Sheiks) which was sponsored by the UK (an Allied Power) for independence and recognition by the UN and ACE.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

I cannot defend all things Israel. I'm not that competent, nor am I that knowledgeable about certain accusations and events.

What little I do know, leads me to believe that much of the self righteous attitude and cosmetic victimization shields the truth and is an obstruction to the realization of peace.

You seem to be a decent person, which is, on topics like this one, very appreciated and quite refreshing.

Let's address this first. No one said that the Palestinian "surrendered their rights to anyone." What was said was that the Palestinian never made the effort to establish a Palestinian "State" and then, when they made a superficial (shoddy work) attempt, it was well too late. What was said, is they that the same time to accomplish something as the Israelis, they had placement and economic advantages over the Israelis, they had external support from every regional country - over the Israelis. Yet, the Israelis were able to accomplish so much more. The Palestinian, for all their cry and posing as victims were not able to establish a nation, or make nearly the same measure of contributions to their ethnic culture or the world, to anywhere near the levels demonstrated by deeds in Israel.

"...cry and posing as victims..."

They were asked to give up 70% of their land, to 10% of the population!

And when they refused, they were attacked by jewish terrorist groups to the point where 750,000 residents had to flee the homes their families were living in for generations.

Do you realize the gravity of that situation?

This is merely a rationalization necessary to continue the armed aggression initiated by the Palestinians and Arab Nations in 1948. It has no basis in fact. This follows some ridiculous logic that Palestine was a sovereignty unto itself during the Mandate; and that the Arab Palestinian had some extraordinary claim to establish a sovereignty.

Jews and arabs lived in Palestine together for generations with no major incidents of violence between the two groups, but that all changed when the zionists showed up. The hostility started with the zionist migration into Palestine.

You cannot speak to the moral high ground. The Palestinian, whether firing anti-tank rockets at a school bus full of children, stabbing to death a family while they sleep, ambushing civilian cars on the road, suicide bombings in crowded shopping centers and restaurants, indiscriminate rocket fire, or just entering a High School in Kfar Etzion and randomly stabbing students, --- these are not the tools or the methods of a people that hold the high moral ground.

Would you like me to list Israeli crimes that are just as bad (if not worse) than those? If you're going to act, like that side of the equation doesn't exist (or doesn't matter), then I'm gonna list'em! But if you tell me you are aware of them, I'm gonna ask that you list 3 of them, to prove you are trying to look at both sides fairly.

All terrorist (insurgents, freedom fighters, resistances movements, etc) share this common language they use to justify their actions. Even Osama bin Laden (another famous Arab Freedom Fighter), in his "Open Letter to America" placed the Palestinian Cause as the number one issue for why he attacked America. That is one hell of a high moral endorsement and solidarity in common cause.

That's more of a statement showing how badly the Israeli's are treating Palestinian's.

This is a switch in the discussion from a sovereignty issue to a civil and/property ownership issue.

The Israeli did not "automatically have more land rights than the people already living there." And I would never justify the unlawful appropriation of the private ownership of land.

How can you think that and say, "...the [Pals] are posing as victims..."

The Irgun is a tricky thing. I think of them as a terrorist group, so I know what you mean. Somewhere around here, I have a British Wanted Poster for Menachem Begin, the last Commander of the Irgun. Oddly enough, they to, thought of themselves as freedom fighters against British occupation during the Mandate. The rhetoric they used then, sounds eerily familiar to that being used by today's Palestinian Terrorist.

Terrorism is terrorism.

However, Irgun today, is the Likud Party.

I do not. Yet, somehow, I don't think the story is complete --- that, that is all there is to it. Nor have I a complete understanding of the circumstances.

But, no - I don't support or approve the confiscation of privately own property without extraordinary justification. But, again - is this justification for the continuation of a struggle for more than a half century?

The "...continuation of [the] struggle...", is because of the ongoing 45 year belligerant occupation of Palestinian land, the economic siege of Gaza and the denial of the Palestinian's inherent right to self-determination by the Israeli's.

Let's make no mistake about this, Israel is the aggressor.

An occupational force cannot claim self-defense!

 

[P F Tinmore]

QUESTION: "How does that negate the rights of the Palestinians to Palestine?"

ANS: It doesn't and it never did. This is a false conclusion. It assumes that someone, some thing, some agency, prevented the Palestinian from working toward and attaining the same objective as the Israel (by comparison). The Palestinian did not opt to advance the same objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are the one basing your conclusion of false premise.

The Palestinians did try to create the state that they had the right to do but were thwarted at every turn by the British. Any move toward nationalism was trampled. Leaders were jailed, exiled, or sometimes killed.

It is not that they had no desire or did not have motivation. It is that they were under the mandate of a world superpower who had a different agenda.

 

[Staidhup]

Israel is a sovereign state. How they respond to terrorism is their business, so what makes it your business? The Jewish refugees that returned to what was once their home land did so to escape persecution and further annihilation. Europe clearly did not want them as was the case with the United States. Palestine was nothing more than an occupied British holding composed of independent nomadic tribes. So the Jews moved in, purchased land, had it taken back by the British, purchased it again, and displaced the Palestinians. The 1917 Balfour Agreement recognized and approved the need to help assist the Zionist movement in establishing a home land, the league of Nations in 1922 agreed, granted Britain temporary administrative powers, the Palestinian and European Immigrant Jews purchased land, then in 1939, Britain overturned the Balfour agreement and reclaimed the land as part of the dwindling British Empire. After the war the flood of immigrants overwhelmed the country, Britain attempted to maintain control, however, after their stunt in 1939 the Jewish people exercised their power to form a legitimate state.So where were these Palestinians, what country did they rule, and where was their government located? There will only be peace in Palestine when the Palestinians agree to respect the right of Israel to exist as a country and Israel respects the rights of Palestinians. If Palestine continues acts of terrorism, and their fellow Muslim counter parts continue to demand the annihilation of Israel, she will do as she must to protect her sovereign rights.

 

[Billo_Really]

Israel is a sovereign state. How they respond to terrorism is their business, so what makes it your business? The Jewish refugees that returned to what was once their home land did so to escape persecution and further annihilation. Europe clearly did not want them as was the case with the United States. Palestine was nothing more than an occupied British holding composed of independent nomadic tribes. So the Jews moved in, purchased land, had it taken back by the British, purchased it again, and displaced the Palestinians. The 1917 Balfour Agreement recognized and approved the need to help assist the Zionist movement in establishing a home land, the league of Nations in 1922 agreed, granted Britain temporary administrative powers, the Palestinian and European Immigrant Jews purchased land, then in 1939, Britain overturned the Balfour agreement and reclaimed the land as part of the dwindling British Empire. After the war the flood of immigrants overwhelmed the country, Britain attempted to maintain control, however, after their stunt in 1939 the Jewish people exercised their power to form a legitimate state.So where were these Palestinians, what country did they rule, and where was their government located? There will only be peace in Palestine when the Palestinians agree to respect the right of Israel to exist as a country and Israel respects the rights of Palestinians. If Palestine continues acts of terrorism, and their fellow Muslim counter parts continue to demand the annihilation of Israel, she will do as she must to protect her sovereign rights.

An occupational force cannot claim self-defense.

 

[RoccoR]

loinboy, Staidhup, et al,

I don't agree.

Israel is a sovereign state. ... ... ...

An occupational force cannot claim self-defense.

(COMMENT)

This is nonsense. The Occupation Force has the right of "self-defense."

The Arab/Palestinian insurgents, when they strike, are the aggressor. They are conducting criminal activity outside the Occupation Law and regional civil criminal law. They have no special status.

I may disagree with the Occupation methodologies and the General Administration of the Occupied Territories, as performed by the Israelis, but that does not entitle the Palestinians to conduct insurgent operations. If they want to pretend to be freedom fighters, or some sort of Resistance Movement, then they better adopt higher ground. Conducting operations without a very clearly worded set of objectives, with an established means of settlement is not a productive process.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I have to chuckle at this. The British, while they might have arrest a couple of Arabs, for criminal activity, spent a majority of their time occupied by the terrorist threats presented by the Jewish constituents.

While most sited here, is the Irgun, the Stern Gang was considered the most violent and active through to Independence. And Avraham Stern was killed by the Palestinian Police (Arab/Jew Contingent) in 1942. He was a very suspect member of the resistance in terms of loyalties to the Jewish cause.

QUESTION: "How does that negate the rights of the Palestinians to Palestine?"

ANS: It doesn't and it never did. This is a false conclusion. It assumes that someone, some thing, some agency, prevented the Palestinian from working toward and attaining the same objective as the Israel (by comparison). The Palestinian did not opt to advance the same objective.

You are the one basing your conclusion of false premise.

The Palestinians did try to create the state that they had the right to do but were thwarted at every turn by the British. Any move toward nationalism was trampled. Leaders were jailed, exiled, or sometimes killed.

It is not that they had no desire or did not have motivation. It is that they were under the mandate of a world superpower who had a different agenda.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian Police (LINK Middle East Centre --- Palestine Police Force 1923/1932-1948) didn't show any more preference for the Jewish terrorist --- as they did for the Arab Palestinian. The Arab Palestinians did not really have a independence movement and were not considered separatist.

And, it wasn't the British High Commissioner that disbanded the Palestinian Arab High Committee, it was the Arab League in mid-1945. They were not negotiating the Partition Plan (LoN Res 181), the rejected the entire idea of a Partition and demanded all 100% of Palestine, and it wasn't even theirs.

In 2011, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated that the Arab rejection of the partition plan was a mistake he hoped to correct.

The Palestinian president said Friday that the Arab world had erred in rejecting the United Nations’ 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state. The Palestinian and Arab refusal set off widespread fighting, then Arab militaries attacked Israel after it declared independence the following year, a war the Arab states lost. “It was our mistake,” the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, above, said in a rare interview on Israeli television. “It was an Arab mistake as a whole.” Referring to Israel, he added, “But do they punish us for this mistake for 64 years?”
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/w...tition-Plan-Was-Error-Mahmoud-Abbas-Says.html

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Staidhup]

I believe the legitimacy and existence of Israel is beyond that of an occupation force. It was written and prophesied, by Moses, in Deuteronomy 30:3 that the state of Israel and its people would one day return to their native land after being scattered through out the world, which was the very foundation and accepted belief of the Zionist movement leading to the Balfour Agreement and acceptance by the League of Nations in 1922. Palestine was an area occupied at the time by numerous fractional tribes, not a nation which is similar to that of the United States and indigenous habitants. I agree that the Palestinians need to address the need to establish a peaceful resolution other than promotion of terrorism and annihilation of Israel. The sad reality is that the Palestinians are and continue to be used as pawns in the hands of political opportunists that care less about Palestinians than that of their own agenda.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is nonsense. The Occupation Force has the right of "self-defense."

They have the right to protect their citizens, but it's not under the heading of "self-defense". By virtue of the fact that they are an "occupational force", means they are the aggressor. They are occupying land that isn't their's, in violation of international law.

The Arab/Palestinian insurgents, when they strike, are the aggressor. They are conducting criminal activity outside the Occupation Law and regional civil criminal law. They have no special status.

Every citizen of every country has the right to resist the belligerent occupation of their land by a foreign force. As long as they target the Israeli military and not innocent civilians who take no part in hostilities, it's perfectly legal.

I may disagree with the Occupation methodologies and the General Administration of the Occupied Territories, as performed by the Israelis, but that does not entitle the Palestinians to conduct insurgent operations. If they want to pretend to be freedom fighters, or some sort of Resistance Movement, then they better adopt higher ground. Conducting operations without a very clearly worded set of objectives, with an established means of settlement is not a productive process.

They are not insurgents if they target the IDF.

Funny how you say nothing about the Israeli's targeting innocent civilians?

They do that a lot more than the Pals do.

 

[Billo_Really]

The Palestinian Police (LINK Middle East Centre --- Palestine Police Force 1923/1932-1948) didn't show any more preference for the Jewish terrorist --- as they did for the Arab Palestinian. The Arab Palestinians did not really have a independence movement and were not considered separatist.

And, it wasn't the British High Commissioner that disbanded the Palestinian Arab High Committee, it was the Arab League in mid-1945. They were not negotiating the Partition Plan (LoN Res 181), the rejected the entire idea of a Partition and demanded all 100% of Palestine, and it wasn't even theirs.

What do you mean it wasn't their's? Arabs owned 85% of the land at that time. 181 was not a fair proposal.

...land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine, including Jaffa, where Arabs owned 47 percent of the land while Jews owned 39 percent – and Jaffa boasted the highest percentage of Jewish-owned land of any district. In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land. At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. In the whole of Palestine, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, which remained the case up until the time of Israel’s creation.

Yet, despite these facts, the U.N. partition recommendation had called for more than half of the land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their “Jewish State”. The truth is that no Arab could be reasonably expected to accept such an unjust proposal. For political commentators today to describe the Arabs’ refusal to accept a recommendation that their land be taken away from them, premised upon the explicit rejection of their right to self-determination, as a “missed opportunity” represents either an astounding ignorance of the roots of the conflict or an unwillingness to look honestly at its history.

Rejection of 181, was not a "missed opportunity".

 

[Billo_Really]

I believe the legitimacy and existence of Israel is beyond that of an occupation force. It was written and prophesied, by Moses, in Deuteronomy 30:3 that the state of Israel and its people would one day return to their native land after being scattered through out the world, which was the very foundation and accepted belief of the Zionist movement leading to the Balfour Agreement and acceptance by the League of Nations in 1922. Palestine was an area occupied at the time by numerous fractional tribes, not a nation which is similar to that of the United States and indigenous habitants. I agree that the Palestinians need to address the need to establish a peaceful resolution other than promotion of terrorism and annihilation of Israel. The sad reality is that the Palestinians are and continue to be used as pawns in the hands of political opportunists that care less about Palestinians than that of their own agenda.

What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today in regards to international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I have a different take on reality.

--- that is "P F Tinmores" argument that the Palestinian lost autonomy and sovereignty, that somehow, Palestine was the domain under the control of the Palestinian.

The problem with your assessment is that when Palestine, and other states, were carved out of the defunct empire the rights did not go to the people who actually lived there but to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

(COMMENT)

I would not call the Allied Command Europe (ACE) or the League of Nations a "bunch of criminals out of Europe;" but, that is just me.

Allied Command Europe - a major strategic headquarters of NATO; safeguards an area extending from Norway to Turkey.​

Q: Which one of these doesn't belong with the others?

a: Israel --- Independence: 14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
b: Iraq --- Independence: 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
c: Jordan --- Independence: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
d: Kuwait --- Independence: 19 June 1961 (from the UK)
e: Lebanon --- Independence: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
f: Palestine --- Not Independent
g: Saudi Arabia --- Independence: 23 September 1932 (Unification of the Kingdom)
h: Syria --- Independence: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
​

ANSWER: "F" The Palestine Order in Council: - LINK - Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order (10 August 1922)​

Every country, all the way around Palestine, managed to create a nation for themselves, except for the Palestinian (one can only ask what was wrong with the Palestinians); with the clarification: Saudi Arabia, which unified itself by internal means, and Kuwait (formerly the Arab Court of Sheiks) which was sponsored by the UK (an Allied Power) for independence and recognition by the UN and ACE.

Most Respectfully,
R

I would not call the Allied Command Europe (ACE) or the League of Nations a "bunch of criminals out of Europe;" but, that is just me.

Basically I was referring to the British and the Zionists. If anyone else was involved in the crimes it was their choice.

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state;...

There is a recognised right to self-determination in international law. It is controversial whether a positive right to armed struggle to fulfil this right exists. It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

If any foreign body violated the Palestinians right to establish an independent state then their actions are illegal.

In my book that would make them criminals.

 

[irosie91]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I have a different take on reality.

The problem with your assessment is that when Palestine, and other states, were carved out of the defunct empire the rights did not go to the people who actually lived there but to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

(COMMENT)

I would not call the Allied Command Europe (ACE) or the League of Nations a "bunch of criminals out of Europe;" but, that is just me.

Allied Command Europe - a major strategic headquarters of NATO; safeguards an area extending from Norway to Turkey.​

Q: Which one of these doesn't belong with the others?

a: Israel --- Independence: 14 May 1948 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
b: Iraq --- Independence: 3 October 1932 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
c: Jordan --- Independence: 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)
d: Kuwait --- Independence: 19 June 1961 (from the UK)
e: Lebanon --- Independence: 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
f: Palestine --- Not Independent
g: Saudi Arabia --- Independence: 23 September 1932 (Unification of the Kingdom)
h: Syria --- Independence: 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)
​

ANSWER: "F" The Palestine Order in Council: - LINK - Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order (10 August 1922)​

Every country, all the way around Palestine, managed to create a nation for themselves, except for the Palestinian (one can only ask what was wrong with the Palestinians); with the clarification: Saudi Arabia, which unified itself by internal means, and Kuwait (formerly the Arab Court of Sheiks) which was sponsored by the UK (an Allied Power) for independence and recognition by the UN and ACE.

Most Respectfully,
R

I would not call the Allied Command Europe (ACE) or the League of Nations a "bunch of criminals out of Europe;" but, that is just me.

Basically I was referring to the British and the Zionists. If anyone else was involved in the crimes it was their choice.

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state;...

There is a recognised right to self-determination in international law. It is controversial whether a positive right to armed struggle to fulfil this right exists. It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

If any foreign body violated the Palestinians right to establish an independent state then their actions are illegal.

In my book that would make them criminals.

Your book, tinnie---is interesting----as is your sense of "rights" In past months
several like you have supported the RIGHT of countries with muslim majorities
to enact shariah law which includes a set of laws virtually identical to the
nuremberg laws which germany also had a RIGHT to impose.
Your concept of "right" would support the "right" of hindu India to
commit a comprehensive genocide of all beef eating muslims in India--or
any muslim who openly denies the divinity of Krishna---India has just as
much right to enact its own laws as does Pakistan. Your sense of "right is
in full support of the recent genocide of christians in sudan and the continued
enslavement of thousands of christian children -----the rebellion of south sudan was
entirely ILLEGAL according to shariah law and your book. More than 70
years ago----the escape of my mother-in-law from enslavement in a shariah shit
hole was ENTIRELY ILLEGAL in the country from which she escaped---and her
entry into palestine was entirely illegal according to your "book" The death
of my grandfather's brother in his attempt to enter palestine on release from
the legal concentration camp in which he was placed---was ENTIRELY legal
since his attempt to enter palestine was ILLEGAL therefore killing him was LEGAL.
It was absolutely legal for egyptians to shoot sudanese escapees in the head as
they fled to Israel because they actually fled sudan ILLEGALLY according
to the SHARIAH LAW of Khartoum and the sensitivities of the pious egytpian border
guards who shot them.

Your book is fascinating-----Turkey likes it-----you also legalized the ARMENIAN
genocide----the armenians violated shariah law ----making the actions of the Turks
ENTIRELY LEGAL ACCORDING TO THE INALIENABLE RIGHT OF THE TURKS TO
THE LAWS THEY HOLD SACRED. BLASPHEMY is a capital crime----rebellion against
SHARIAH is blasphemy. Nothing new---you also legalized the Inquisition

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians did not really have a independence movement and were not considered separatist.

All those strikes and uprisings were what then.

The Palestinians were in Palestine. They would want to be separate from what?

 

[irosie91]

The Arab Palestinians did not really have a independence movement and were not considered separatist.

All those strikes and uprisings were what then.

The Palestinians were in Palestine. They would want to be separate from what?

The episodes of violence comitted by muslims in the area which included that
which became the Palestine mandate after world war I -----were manifestations
of arab nationalism The persons involved in the throat slitting episodes
did not refer to themselves as "palestinians" ----they called themselves
"arabs" and sometimes "syrians' There was an agenda among arabs of
that time of HOME RULE for arabs ---before world war I---as opposed to
OTTOMAN control and after World War I as opposed to British control
Local muslim leaders supported the imposition of the filth of shariah
in a strict manner as opposed to the liberal approach of the Ottomans which
went so far was to allow jews to own land. One of the features of current
islamo nazi propaganda is the DELETION of the dispute between the
arabs and the turks. The arabs resented TURKISH CONTROL ---especially
the atrocity of allowing jews---whether migrants or residents to BUY LAND--
but also the lack of SHARIAH LAW CONTROL
Try to be honest tinnie it will not kill you-----
There was certainly no campaign to create an ARAB MUSLIM COUNTY
CALLED PALESTINE at that time. There was a campaign by muslim leaders
like al husseini to emulate your hero Adolf abu ali and commit a genocide
against jews in the middle east -----over which you still fantasize.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm, I have to say, that you caught me here. I could have discussed this a little better.

The Arab Palestinians did not really have a independence movement and were not considered separatist.

(COMMENT)

I was thinking in terms of the accepted processes (non-violent/diplomatic) that did not involve an uprising. But, yes, you are correct. The Arab-Palestinians did, as a first choice, adopt a violent solutions against the Mandate authority. And it failed. As I wrote in an earlier commentary, the Palestinian standard practice was to jumpt to violence as a first solution. The pre-1940 effort was a characteristic they would repeat in 1948.

Striking the British, in their darkest hour while facing a possible invasion from Europe, did not endear them to the UK.

All those strikes and uprisings were what then.

The Palestinians were in Palestine. They would want to be separate from what?

(COMMENT)

Yes, you are correct. (I stand corrected and apologize; in that I did not fully explain.)

There was a period of internal hostility between 1935–1940, called the Arab Revolt. These were the Arab Nationalist backed by the Palestinian Arab High Committee, puppets of the Arab League (external forces).

The nature of the separation was from the mandate. The separatist (those nationalists that wanted to separate and withdraw from British control, seceding from an established mandate) were persistent for about a five year period, during WWII, when the British were perceived to be the weakest, and deeply involved in the homeland defense against Germany and the North African effort.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm, I have to say, that you caught me here. I could have discussed this a little better.

The Arab Palestinians did not really have a independence movement and were not considered separatist.

(COMMENT)

I was thinking in terms of the accepted processes (non-violent/diplomatic) that did not involve an uprising. But, yes, you are correct. The Arab-Palestinians did, as a first choice, adopt a violent solutions against the Mandate authority. And it failed. As I wrote in an earlier commentary, the Palestinian standard practice was to jumpt to violence as a first solution. The pre-1940 effort was a characteristic they would repeat in 1948.

Striking the British, in their darkest hour while facing a possible invasion from Europe, did not endear them to the UK.

All those strikes and uprisings were what then.

The Palestinians were in Palestine. They would want to be separate from what?

(COMMENT)

Yes, you are correct. (I stand corrected and apologize; in that I did not fully explain.)

There was a period of internal hostility between 1935–1940, called the Arab Revolt. These were the Arab Nationalist backed by the Palestinian Arab High Committee, puppets of the Arab League (external forces).

The nature of the separation was from the mandate. The separatist (those nationalists that wanted to separate and withdraw from British control, seceding from an established mandate) were persistent for about a five year period, during WWII, when the British were perceived to be the weakest, and deeply involved in the homeland defense against Germany and the North African effort.

Most Respectfully,
R

There were those who believed in diplomacy also. But Britain just shoved the Palestinians aside and went to its own agenda. This is nothing new. Britain had been trampling on natives for centuries.

Britain violated the League of Nations Covenant, its own mandate, and international law.

The Palestinians are only seeking justice for these violations.

 

[ima]

Israel is a sovereign state. How they respond to terrorism is their business, so what makes it your business? The Jewish refugees that returned to what was once their home land did so to escape persecution and further annihilation. Europe clearly did not want them as was the case with the United States. Palestine was nothing more than an occupied British holding composed of independent nomadic tribes. So the Jews moved in, purchased land, had it taken back by the British, purchased it again, and displaced the Palestinians. The 1917 Balfour Agreement recognized and approved the need to help assist the Zionist movement in establishing a home land, the league of Nations in 1922 agreed, granted Britain temporary administrative powers, the Palestinian and European Immigrant Jews purchased land, then in 1939, Britain overturned the Balfour agreement and reclaimed the land as part of the dwindling British Empire. After the war the flood of immigrants overwhelmed the country, Britain attempted to maintain control, however, after their stunt in 1939 the Jewish people exercised their power to form a legitimate state.So where were these Palestinians, what country did they rule, and where was their government located? There will only be peace in Palestine when the Palestinians agree to respect the right of Israel to exist as a country and Israel respects the rights of Palestinians. If Palestine continues acts of terrorism, and their fellow Muslim counter parts continue to demand the annihilation of Israel, she will do as she must to protect her sovereign rights.

It's what I've been saying all along, no war, no flood of immigrants, and Jews would be still happy in Europe, making Hitler Israel's best friend ever because who knows what would have happened without WWII, maybe Israel isn't even created, or is created instead in South Florida?

 

[georgephillip]

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'

"Storrs’ analogy was no accident. Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer, and where the devastating effectiveness of using foreign settlers to drive a wedge between the colonial rulers and the colonized made it a template for worldwide imperial rule."

It was 1609 when the English imported 20,000 Protestants into Northern Ireland.
In 1969 the violence levels from that original colonization rivaled the levels found in Vietnam on some days. Some of this problem reduces very simply to a Class War that's been in progress for thousands of years. IMHO, US and Israeli elites, and the governments they control, are on the wrong side.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

 

[irosie91]

silly comment who was being "DIVIDED AND CONQUORED" in palestine?
Was there some common cause over there that was being destroyed?
The technique of "divide and conquor" is as old as human society and warfare
(which started at the very dawn of history at the water hole)