Who are the Israelis?

[Phoenall]

What foriegn colonial domination is that, give details of the originating nation funding the colonisation ?

The Zionists mooched British military. Other funding was mooched from various places around the world.

And where is your evidence, all you have is hearsay and conjecture and no real evidence.


Any chance of meeting the criteria of the original request, which nation funded the colonisation ?

Settler colonialism is not necessarily a national project.

Sorry but it is, that is why it is termed Settler Colonialism. So which nation funded the Settler Colonialism, or are you now stuck in the corner.

There is a big difference between colonialism and settler colonialism.

Then define it, so we can all have a laugh at your ineptitude

 

[Phoenall]

Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

Indeed, those are the two core principles of the mandate system.

1. The mandates did not annex the territories. Palestine was a state separate from the Mandate.*
2. The Mandates held the territories in trust for the benefit of the people in their respective states.

*From your link:
A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:

The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.[28]​

So what has being accountable for your debts to do with proving that the state of palestine existed prior to 1988. That is what you are now using in your failed attempt at proving your claims.

You are confusing the mandate with the mandatory again, time you learnt the difference. Great Britain was not the mandate

 

[P F Tinmore]

Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

Indeed, those are the two core principles of the mandate system.

1. The mandates did not annex the territories. Palestine was a state separate from the Mandate.*
2. The Mandates held the territories in trust for the benefit of the people in their respective states.

*From your link:
A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:

The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.[28]​

So what has being accountable for your debts to do with proving that the state of palestine existed prior to 1988. That is what you are now using in your failed attempt at proving your claims.

You are confusing the mandate with the mandatory again, time you learnt the difference. Great Britain was not the mandate

Lots of blabber.

No proof.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is utter nonsense. It is a Arab Palestinian interpretation that they try to use and justify a generational culture of violence. For more than a century, they have done absolutely nothing but complain and extend the use of violence.

They have been a threat to regional security for a (nearly) hundred years, and they wonder why Israel, and the adjacent Arab neighbors, quarantined them off from in an attempt to contain the spread of their whiney tantrums and acts of violence.

Lots of blabber.
No proof.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians act as if they were promised some special recognition. They were not. In these discussions, they have done nothing to further the cause of peace. They rely of very vague phases and terms that suggest there is an actually agreed upon obligation between the Arab Palestinian --- and some other authority (the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, Treaty, etc).

v/r
R

 

[Hollie]

Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

Indeed, those are the two core principles of the mandate system.

1. The mandates did not annex the territories. Palestine was a state separate from the Mandate.*
2. The Mandates held the territories in trust for the benefit of the people in their respective states.

*From your link:
A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:

The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.[28]​

Indeed, it's comical to watch as Monty plagiarizes from wiki and you are carrying on with your silly "country of Pal'istan" meme.

 

[Phoenall]

Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

Indeed, those are the two core principles of the mandate system.

1. The mandates did not annex the territories. Palestine was a state separate from the Mandate.*
2. The Mandates held the territories in trust for the benefit of the people in their respective states.

*From your link:
A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:

The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.[28]​

So what has being accountable for your debts to do with proving that the state of palestine existed prior to 1988. That is what you are now using in your failed attempt at proving your claims.

You are confusing the mandate with the mandatory again, time you learnt the difference. Great Britain was not the mandate

Lots of blabber.

No proof.

The proof is in the cut & paste that says just this

You often confuse the mandate with the mandatory, and say that Britain was the mandate

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is utter nonsense. It is a Arab Palestinian interpretation that they try to use and justify a generational culture of violence. For more than a century, they have done absolutely nothing but complain and extend the use of violence.

They have been a threat to regional security for a (nearly) hundred years, and they wonder why Israel, and the adjacent Arab neighbors, quarantined them off from in an attempt to contain the spread of their whiney tantrums and acts of violence.

Lots of blabber.
No proof.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians act as if they were promised some special recognition. They were not. In these discussions, they have done nothing to further the cause of peace. They rely of very vague phases and terms that suggest there is an actually agreed upon obligation between the Arab Palestinian --- and some other authority (the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, Treaty, etc).

v/r
R

I just go by what the documents say.

You just go by what Israel says.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is utter nonsense. It is a Arab Palestinian interpretation that they try to use and justify a generational culture of violence. For more than a century, they have done absolutely nothing but complain and extend the use of violence.

They have been a threat to regional security for a (nearly) hundred years, and they wonder why Israel, and the adjacent Arab neighbors, quarantined them off from in an attempt to contain the spread of their whiney tantrums and acts of violence.

Lots of blabber.
No proof.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians act as if they were promised some special recognition. They were not. In these discussions, they have done nothing to further the cause of peace. They rely of very vague phases and terms that suggest there is an actually agreed upon obligation between the Arab Palestinian --- and some other authority (the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, Treaty, etc).

v/r
R

I just go by what the documents say.

You just go by what Israel says.

It's not true at all that you "just go by what the documents say", as the documents clearly do not 'say" what you represent. It's an old ploy of Arab Moslem terrorist huggers to misrepresent history, attempt to rewrite history and to retroactively apply themes and conventions that didn't exist nearly one hundred years ago.

It's a similar old ploy of Islamic terrorist huggers to whine incessantly about the history they can't change. While you feel slighted that Israel is successful and dynamic - and your Islamist dystopias are failures - your insensate Jew hatreds are misplaced. Reviling the Jews will do nothing to mitigate the ineptitude and incompetence of Islamism.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is utter nonsense. It is a Arab Palestinian interpretation that they try to use and justify a generational culture of violence. For more than a century, they have done absolutely nothing but complain and extend the use of violence.

They have been a threat to regional security for a (nearly) hundred years, and they wonder why Israel, and the adjacent Arab neighbors, quarantined them off from in an attempt to contain the spread of their whiney tantrums and acts of violence.

Lots of blabber.
No proof.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians act as if they were promised some special recognition. They were not. In these discussions, they have done nothing to further the cause of peace. They rely of very vague phases and terms that suggest there is an actually agreed upon obligation between the Arab Palestinian --- and some other authority (the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, Treaty, etc).

v/r
R

I just go by what the documents say.

You just go by what Israel says.

It's not true at all that you "just go by what the documents say", as the documents clearly do not 'say" what you represent. It's an old ploy of Arab Moslem terrorist huggers to misrepresent history, attempt to rewrite history and to retroactively apply themes and conventions that didn't exist nearly one hundred years ago.

It's a similar old ploy of Islamic terrorist huggers to whine incessantly about the history they can't change. While you feel slighted that Israel is successful and dynamic - and your Islamist dystopias are failures - your insensate Jew hatreds are misplaced. Reviling the Jews will do nothing to mitigate the ineptitude and incompetence of Islamism.

I mentioned Jews?

Where?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is utter nonsense. It is a Arab Palestinian interpretation that they try to use and justify a generational culture of violence. For more than a century, they have done absolutely nothing but complain and extend the use of violence.

They have been a threat to regional security for a (nearly) hundred years, and they wonder why Israel, and the adjacent Arab neighbors, quarantined them off from in an attempt to contain the spread of their whiney tantrums and acts of violence.

Lots of blabber.
No proof.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians act as if they were promised some special recognition. They were not. In these discussions, they have done nothing to further the cause of peace. They rely of very vague phases and terms that suggest there is an actually agreed upon obligation between the Arab Palestinian --- and some other authority (the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, Treaty, etc).

v/r
R

I just go by what the documents say.

You just go by what Israel says.

It's not true at all that you "just go by what the documents say", as the documents clearly do not 'say" what you represent. It's an old ploy of Arab Moslem terrorist huggers to misrepresent history, attempt to rewrite history and to retroactively apply themes and conventions that didn't exist nearly one hundred years ago.

It's a similar old ploy of Islamic terrorist huggers to whine incessantly about the history they can't change. While you feel slighted that Israel is successful and dynamic - and your Islamist dystopias are failures - your insensate Jew hatreds are misplaced. Reviling the Jews will do nothing to mitigate the ineptitude and incompetence of Islamism.

I mentioned Jews?

Where?

You're wearing your islamo-tap dancing shoes, right there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is utter nonsense. It is a Arab Palestinian interpretation that they try to use and justify a generational culture of violence. For more than a century, they have done absolutely nothing but complain and extend the use of violence.

They have been a threat to regional security for a (nearly) hundred years, and they wonder why Israel, and the adjacent Arab neighbors, quarantined them off from in an attempt to contain the spread of their whiney tantrums and acts of violence.

Lots of blabber.
No proof.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians act as if they were promised some special recognition. They were not. In these discussions, they have done nothing to further the cause of peace. They rely of very vague phases and terms that suggest there is an actually agreed upon obligation between the Arab Palestinian --- and some other authority (the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, Treaty, etc).

v/r
R

I just go by what the documents say.

You just go by what Israel says.

It's not true at all that you "just go by what the documents say", as the documents clearly do not 'say" what you represent. It's an old ploy of Arab Moslem terrorist huggers to misrepresent history, attempt to rewrite history and to retroactively apply themes and conventions that didn't exist nearly one hundred years ago.

It's a similar old ploy of Islamic terrorist huggers to whine incessantly about the history they can't change. While you feel slighted that Israel is successful and dynamic - and your Islamist dystopias are failures - your insensate Jew hatreds are misplaced. Reviling the Jews will do nothing to mitigate the ineptitude and incompetence of Islamism.

I mentioned Jews?

Where?

You're wearing your islamo-tap dancing shoes, right there.

Is that all you have to say when you are caught lying?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is utter nonsense. It is a Arab Palestinian interpretation that they try to use and justify a generational culture of violence. For more than a century, they have done absolutely nothing but complain and extend the use of violence.

They have been a threat to regional security for a (nearly) hundred years, and they wonder why Israel, and the adjacent Arab neighbors, quarantined them off from in an attempt to contain the spread of their whiney tantrums and acts of violence.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians act as if they were promised some special recognition. They were not. In these discussions, they have done nothing to further the cause of peace. They rely of very vague phases and terms that suggest there is an actually agreed upon obligation between the Arab Palestinian --- and some other authority (the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, Treaty, etc).

v/r
R

I just go by what the documents say.

You just go by what Israel says.

It's not true at all that you "just go by what the documents say", as the documents clearly do not 'say" what you represent. It's an old ploy of Arab Moslem terrorist huggers to misrepresent history, attempt to rewrite history and to retroactively apply themes and conventions that didn't exist nearly one hundred years ago.

It's a similar old ploy of Islamic terrorist huggers to whine incessantly about the history they can't change. While you feel slighted that Israel is successful and dynamic - and your Islamist dystopias are failures - your insensate Jew hatreds are misplaced. Reviling the Jews will do nothing to mitigate the ineptitude and incompetence of Islamism.

I mentioned Jews?

Where?

You're wearing your islamo-tap dancing shoes, right there.

Is that all you have to say when you are caught lying?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I just go by what the documents say.

You just go by what Israel says.

It's not true at all that you "just go by what the documents say", as the documents clearly do not 'say" what you represent. It's an old ploy of Arab Moslem terrorist huggers to misrepresent history, attempt to rewrite history and to retroactively apply themes and conventions that didn't exist nearly one hundred years ago.

It's a similar old ploy of Islamic terrorist huggers to whine incessantly about the history they can't change. While you feel slighted that Israel is successful and dynamic - and your Islamist dystopias are failures - your insensate Jew hatreds are misplaced. Reviling the Jews will do nothing to mitigate the ineptitude and incompetence of Islamism.

I mentioned Jews?

Where?

You're wearing your islamo-tap dancing shoes, right there.

Is that all you have to say when you are caught lying?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

You lied now you are trying to deflect.

 

[Hollie]

It's not true at all that you "just go by what the documents say", as the documents clearly do not 'say" what you represent. It's an old ploy of Arab Moslem terrorist huggers to misrepresent history, attempt to rewrite history and to retroactively apply themes and conventions that didn't exist nearly one hundred years ago.

It's a similar old ploy of Islamic terrorist huggers to whine incessantly about the history they can't change. While you feel slighted that Israel is successful and dynamic - and your Islamist dystopias are failures - your insensate Jew hatreds are misplaced. Reviling the Jews will do nothing to mitigate the ineptitude and incompetence of Islamism.

I mentioned Jews?

Where?

You're wearing your islamo-tap dancing shoes, right there.

Is that all you have to say when you are caught lying?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

You lied now you are trying to deflect.

You have fallen down and bumped your head.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I mentioned Jews?

Where?

You're wearing your islamo-tap dancing shoes, right there.

Is that all you have to say when you are caught lying?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

You lied now you are trying to deflect.

You have fallen down and bumped your head.

Deflect away! You lied.

 

[Hollie]

You're wearing your islamo-tap dancing shoes, right there.

Is that all you have to say when you are caught lying?

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

You lied now you are trying to deflect.

You have fallen down and bumped your head.

Deflect away! You lied.

You poor, dear. You can't address my comments so you're off on another tirade.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is utter nonsense. It is a Arab Palestinian interpretation that they try to use and justify a generational culture of violence. For more than a century, they have done absolutely nothing but complain and extend the use of violence.

They have been a threat to regional security for a (nearly) hundred years, and they wonder why Israel, and the adjacent Arab neighbors, quarantined them off from in an attempt to contain the spread of their whiney tantrums and acts of violence.

Lots of blabber.
No proof.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians act as if they were promised some special recognition. They were not. In these discussions, they have done nothing to further the cause of peace. They rely of very vague phases and terms that suggest there is an actually agreed upon obligation between the Arab Palestinian --- and some other authority (the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, Treaty, etc).

v/r
R

I just go by what the documents say.

You just go by what Israel says.

WRONG you go ny what you think the documents say, and then ignore them when you are shown they dont. The documents say that Britain was the mandatory power, you think they say that Britain was the mandate power.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is utter nonsense. It is a Arab Palestinian interpretation that they try to use and justify a generational culture of violence. For more than a century, they have done absolutely nothing but complain and extend the use of violence.

They have been a threat to regional security for a (nearly) hundred years, and they wonder why Israel, and the adjacent Arab neighbors, quarantined them off from in an attempt to contain the spread of their whiney tantrums and acts of violence.

Lots of blabber.
No proof.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians act as if they were promised some special recognition. They were not. In these discussions, they have done nothing to further the cause of peace. They rely of very vague phases and terms that suggest there is an actually agreed upon obligation between the Arab Palestinian --- and some other authority (the LoN, the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, Treaty, etc).

v/r
R

I just go by what the documents say.

You just go by what Israel says.

It's not true at all that you "just go by what the documents say", as the documents clearly do not 'say" what you represent. It's an old ploy of Arab Moslem terrorist huggers to misrepresent history, attempt to rewrite history and to retroactively apply themes and conventions that didn't exist nearly one hundred years ago.

It's a similar old ploy of Islamic terrorist huggers to whine incessantly about the history they can't change. While you feel slighted that Israel is successful and dynamic - and your Islamist dystopias are failures - your insensate Jew hatreds are misplaced. Reviling the Jews will do nothing to mitigate the ineptitude and incompetence of Islamism.

I mentioned Jews?

Where?

In every post as that is all you post about.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, don't kid me.

I just go by what the documents say.

(COMMENT)

Particularly you, but there are many others, that take the "documented facts" and reinterpret the data --- twist and squeezing it to fit an Arab Palestinian agenda.

Particularly you, but there are many others, that think the that Arab Palestinian is owed something --- that it should be handed to them on a silver plater from those that did the heavy lifting ---- while the Arab Palestinian collaborated on the side of Central and Axis Powers; not just once --- but in both World War.

Particularly you, but there are many others, that try to shackle and chain the very people that came together and hammered-out a potential way forward --- between themselves --- (not including the Arab Palestinian) --- but may be a way forward that would benefit the Arab Palestinians.

For the most part, the Arab Palestinians never appreciated the lengths at which the Allied Powers went to help them. They were not educated enough to understand the entire perspective on the situation. The view that the way of negotiation and cooperation is the primer for a workable solution -- but an unachievable goal in the eyes of the Arab Palestinian who know not the art of compromise.

You just go by what Israel says.

••• In most every exchange we have. I try to link the foundation of each statement I make to a substantiating piece of historical documentation. But in such method, I not actually showing any original though. It is derivative. It could be something that the Israelis might say; or it may not. Rarely do any of my sources come from official Israeli outlets. You can probably go back several hundred of my commentaries and not fid one source from the a pure Israeli outlet.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, don't kid me.

I just go by what the documents say.

(COMMENT)

Particularly you, but there are many others, that take the "documented facts" and reinterpret the data --- twist and squeezing it to fit an Arab Palestinian agenda.

Particularly you, but there are many others, that think the that Arab Palestinian is owed something --- that it should be handed to them on a silver plater from those that did the heavy lifting ---- while the Arab Palestinian collaborated on the side of Central and Axis Powers; not just once --- but in both World War.

Particularly you, but there are many others, that try to shackle and chain the very people that came together and hammered-out a potential way forward --- between themselves --- (not including the Arab Palestinian) --- but may be a way forward that would benefit the Arab Palestinians.

For the most part, the Arab Palestinians never appreciated the lengths at which the Allied Powers went to help them. They were not educated enough to understand the entire perspective on the situation. The view that the way of negotiation and cooperation is the primer for a workable solution -- but an unachievable goal in the eyes of the Arab Palestinian who know not the art of compromise.

You just go by what Israel says.

••• In most every exchange we have. I try to link the foundation of each statement I make to a substantiating piece of historical documentation. But in such method, I not actually showing any original though. It is derivative. It could be something that the Israelis might say; or it may not. Rarely do any of my sources come from official Israeli outlets. You can probably go back several hundred of my commentaries and not fid one source from the a pure Israeli outlet.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, but you still manage to duck the questions.