Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Shusha]

...Palestine became entirely Arabized from the late period of the 7th century until the criminal seizure of Historic Palestine by Eastern European Khazar-convert Jewish trash...it genuinely bewilders me ....

It bewilders me how someone can -- in the same sentence -- discuss the "Arabization" of Palestine vs. the "criminal seizure" of Palestine as though the one was benign and the other malignant.

Palestine Israel was Judaized *ahem RE-Judaized*.

 

[Ventura77]

Wrong yet again Shusha: DNA evidence presented by Elhaik is conclusive and beyond debate...

It doesn't say what you think it says.

But even if it did say what you think it says -- that some Jews are converts from hundreds of years ago -- it makes not one whit of difference in the rights of peoples.

The rights of peoples are NOT based on their DNA. DNA is not even a contributing factor to rights let alone the determining factor. You want to play that game? How about if we say that ANY Arab Palestinian without "enough" Canaanite blood has not rights to live in the territory in question? How about if we say that no American without First Nations blood has a right to be a US citizen and live in the US?

The very idea of it is ridiculous.

"what I think it says???" You are so remarkably lost in this exchange that I almost pity you...you speak of 'rights' that are completely fictive, the DNA question merely resolves one of the central claims of Zionist polemics: that today's Jews are genetic relations to the ancient Jews, DNA proves not! Yet you appear to dismiss the relevance of the DNA proof because it obliterates a long-standing Zionist lie. But the real gem is your standard reference to native Americans...When the Christian Europeans were killing the native tribes there was no international law...no protections for the property rights of native peoples...however this was not the case in 1948...hence your analogy falls flat, as does your febrile bullshit...

 

[Hollie]

Wrong yet again Shusha: DNA evidence presented by Elhaik is conclusive and beyond debate...

It doesn't say what you think it says.

But even if it did say what you think it says -- that some Jews are converts from hundreds of years ago -- it makes not one whit of difference in the rights of peoples.

The rights of peoples are NOT based on their DNA. DNA is not even a contributing factor to rights let alone the determining factor. You want to play that game? How about if we say that ANY Arab Palestinian without "enough" Canaanite blood has not rights to live in the territory in question? How about if we say that no American without First Nations blood has a right to be a US citizen and live in the US?

The very idea of it is ridiculous.

"what I think it says???" You are so remarkably lost in this exchange that I almost pity you...you speak of 'rights' that are completely fictive, the DNA question merely resolves one of the central claims of Zionist polemics: that today's Jews are genetic relations to the ancient Jews, DNA proves not! Yet you appear to dismiss the relevance of the DNA proof because it obliterates a long-standing Zionist lie. But the real gem is your standard reference to native Americans...When the Christian Europeans were killing the native tribes there was no international law...no protections for the property rights of native peoples...however this was not the case in 1948...hence your analogy falls flat, as does your febrile bullshit...

You’re a bit slow on the uptake so I’ll make the point that your ill-formed and sloppy attempt at the “DNA argument” would similarly apply to the Moslem, Christian, Mongol ancestry of the people you carelessly and fraudulently assert had “lived there for 13 centuries”.

It’s actually comical to watch you refute your own attempt at argument.

What a hoot.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Ventura77, et al,

When a sentence starts with a "What," it is a basic interrogative --- NOT a denial.

HERE IS AN IDEAL EXAMPLE OF JEWISH OBSCURANTISM AND BLIND DENIAL...Congrats Rocco, you just fell flat on your face!!!! The only 'ambiguity' is your own amigo...to state that the actual intervention by Syrian and Egyptian troops is not 'relative' to an event upon which Israel's putative statehood was premised is essentially a fool's perspective....there was no 'War of Independence' because no 'dependent' Israel existed...the 'Zionist offensive' is ridiculously well-documented, mostly by the statements of the Zionist leaders involved....you didn't refute the information I posted, you merely exposed your profound ignorance!!! LOL

(COMMENT)

• What Zionist offensive?" What "attacking military campaign?"

• The United Nations in conjunction with the UK Mandatory, set up procedures, so that the Palestine Government would, when the time came, be hand over UN Palestine Commission.” The Jewish Agency had been, since the creation of the UN Palestine Commission, coordinating and working through the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as recommended in Resolution 181(II).

§ Israeli 'War of Independence'

The first war immediately followed Israel’s proclamation of statehood on May 14, 1948. Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon occupied the areas in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the United Nations (UN) partition of Palestine and then captured east Jerusalem, including the small Jewish quarter of the Old City, in an effort to forestall the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. (SOURCE: Encyclopædia Britannica - Articles of History - Arab-Israeli Wars)

As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel. The Egyptians gained some territory in the south and the Jordanians took Jerusalem's Old City, but the other Arab forces were soon halted. In June the United Nations succeeded in establishing a four-week truce. (SOURCE: Arab-Israeli Wars: The 1948–49 War --- INFO Please --- Columbia Encyclopedia)

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. (SOURCE: “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations,”)​

• Certainly, if you go back over my posting, you will notice that at no time did I suggest that the Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and volunteers from others, did not play a role in the initial assault on Israel --- immediately following the coordinated announcement of the Independence of the Jewish State. I questioned the appropriate use of the phrase "Zionist offensive" and I suggested that elements of the five primary participants in the 15 May 1948 Assault on Israel was to prevent the ability of the Provisional Government from fully forming. After all, this was a principle objective as stated by the Arab Higher Committee.

• You stipulated that "Israel did not yet exist when the fraudulent claim of 'Five Arab armies attacking' went into circulation..." --- that is probably true, since there were numerous reports of the primary Arab Aggressors operating inside the territory still under the Mandate, performing reconnaissance,registering artillery points, and recruting insurgents and local national support. (EXAMPLE UK MEMO to UNPC: A/AC.21/UK/10 February 1948 Entry into Palestine of Large Parties of Trained Guerrillas from Adjacent Territory)

(SALIENT POINT)

No matter what your claim about who did what to whom, 70 years ago, the fact of the matter is (right - wrong - indifferent) it will not change the ground truth of today, the political outs established in the past, or further advance the Hostile Arab Palestinian Position that conflict is the only solution and that further negotiations are irrelevant.

As long as you are captured by the political gravitation of the past, you will not --- cannot --- progress to any meaningful settlement consistent with the Resolution of "Settlement by peaceful means of disputes between States" (A/RES/34/102) and the "Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States" (A/RES/25/3625). It is a consequence of the Arab Palestinians specifically, and the general Arab World Generally, that retards their advancement up the Human Development Scale, despite economic advantages and the contributions by donor nations.

"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders,
who are struggling to survive.
These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority."
— Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Ventura77]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Ventura77, et al,

When a sentence starts with a "What," it is a basic interrogative --- NOT a denial.

HERE IS AN IDEAL EXAMPLE OF JEWISH OBSCURANTISM AND BLIND DENIAL...Congrats Rocco, you just fell flat on your face!!!! The only 'ambiguity' is your own amigo...to state that the actual intervention by Syrian and Egyptian troops is not 'relative' to an event upon which Israel's putative statehood was premised is essentially a fool's perspective....there was no 'War of Independence' because no 'dependent' Israel existed...the 'Zionist offensive' is ridiculously well-documented, mostly by the statements of the Zionist leaders involved....you didn't refute the information I posted, you merely exposed your profound ignorance!!! LOL

(COMMENT)

• What Zionist offensive?" What "attacking military campaign?"

• The United Nations in conjunction with the UK Mandatory, set up procedures, so that the Palestine Government would, when the time came, be hand over UN Palestine Commission.” The Jewish Agency had been, since the creation of the UN Palestine Commission, coordinating and working through the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as recommended in Resolution 181(II).

§ Israeli 'War of Independence'

The first war immediately followed Israel’s proclamation of statehood on May 14, 1948. Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon occupied the areas in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the United Nations (UN) partition of Palestine and then captured east Jerusalem, including the small Jewish quarter of the Old City, in an effort to forestall the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. (SOURCE: Encyclopædia Britannica - Articles of History - Arab-Israeli Wars)

As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel. The Egyptians gained some territory in the south and the Jordanians took Jerusalem's Old City, but the other Arab forces were soon halted. In June the United Nations succeeded in establishing a four-week truce. (SOURCE: Arab-Israeli Wars: The 1948–49 War --- INFO Please --- Columbia Encyclopedia)

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. (SOURCE: “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations,”)​

• Certainly, if you go back over my posting, you will notice that at no time did I suggest that the Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and volunteers from others, did not play a role in the initial assault on Israel --- immediately following the coordinated announcement of the Independence of the Jewish State. I questioned the appropriate use of the phrase "Zionist offensive" and I suggested that elements of the five primary participants in the 15 May 1948 Assault on Israel was to prevent the ability of the Provisional Government from fully forming. After all, this was a principle objective as stated by the Arab Higher Committee.

• You stipulated that "Israel did not yet exist when the fraudulent claim of 'Five Arab armies attacking' went into circulation..." --- that is probably true, since there were numerous reports of the primary Arab Aggressors operating inside the territory still under the Mandate, performing reconnaissance,registering artillery points, and recruting insurgents and local national support. (EXAMPLE UK MEMO to UNPC: A/AC.21/UK/10 February 1948 Entry into Palestine of Large Parties of Trained Guerrillas from Adjacent Territory)

(SALIENT POINT)

No matter what your claim about who did what to whom, 70 years ago, the fact of the matter is (right - wrong - indifferent) it will not change the ground truth of today, the political outs established in the past, or further advance the Hostile Arab Palestinian Position that conflict is the only solution and that further negotiations are irrelevant.

As long as you are captured by the political gravitation of the past, you will not --- cannot --- progress to any meaningful settlement consistent with the Resolution of "Settlement by peaceful means of disputes between States" (A/RES/34/102) and the "Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States" (A/RES/25/3625). It is a consequence of the Arab Palestinians specifically, and the general Arab World Generally, that retards their advancement up the Human Development Scale, despite economic advantages and the contributions by donor nations.

"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders,
who are struggling to survive.
These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority."
— Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The U.N. recommendation to partition Palestine was rejected by the Arabs. Many commentators today point to this rejection as constituting a missed “opportunity” for the Arabs to have had their own state. But characterizing this as an “opportunity” for the Arabs is patently ridiculous. The Partition plan was in no way, shape, or form an “opportunity” for the Arabs.

First of all, as already noted, Arabs were a large majority in Palestine at the time, with Jews making up about a third of the population by then, due to massive immigration of Jews from Europe (in 1922, by contrast, a British census showed that Jews represented only about 11 percent of the population).
Additionally, 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.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Ventura77, et al,

When a sentence starts with a "What," it is a basic interrogative --- NOT a denial.

HERE IS AN IDEAL EXAMPLE OF JEWISH OBSCURANTISM AND BLIND DENIAL...Congrats Rocco, you just fell flat on your face!!!! The only 'ambiguity' is your own amigo...to state that the actual intervention by Syrian and Egyptian troops is not 'relative' to an event upon which Israel's putative statehood was premised is essentially a fool's perspective....there was no 'War of Independence' because no 'dependent' Israel existed...the 'Zionist offensive' is ridiculously well-documented, mostly by the statements of the Zionist leaders involved....you didn't refute the information I posted, you merely exposed your profound ignorance!!! LOL

(COMMENT)

• What Zionist offensive?" What "attacking military campaign?"

• The United Nations in conjunction with the UK Mandatory, set up procedures, so that the Palestine Government would, when the time came, be hand over UN Palestine Commission.” The Jewish Agency had been, since the creation of the UN Palestine Commission, coordinating and working through the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as recommended in Resolution 181(II).

§ Israeli 'War of Independence'

The first war immediately followed Israel’s proclamation of statehood on May 14, 1948. Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon occupied the areas in southern and eastern Palestine not apportioned to the Jews by the United Nations (UN) partition of Palestine and then captured east Jerusalem, including the small Jewish quarter of the Old City, in an effort to forestall the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. (SOURCE: Encyclopædia Britannica - Articles of History - Arab-Israeli Wars)

As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel. The Egyptians gained some territory in the south and the Jordanians took Jerusalem's Old City, but the other Arab forces were soon halted. In June the United Nations succeeded in establishing a four-week truce. (SOURCE: Arab-Israeli Wars: The 1948–49 War --- INFO Please --- Columbia Encyclopedia)

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. (SOURCE: “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations,”)​

• Certainly, if you go back over my posting, you will notice that at no time did I suggest that the Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and volunteers from others, did not play a role in the initial assault on Israel --- immediately following the coordinated announcement of the Independence of the Jewish State. I questioned the appropriate use of the phrase "Zionist offensive" and I suggested that elements of the five primary participants in the 15 May 1948 Assault on Israel was to prevent the ability of the Provisional Government from fully forming. After all, this was a principle objective as stated by the Arab Higher Committee.

• You stipulated that "Israel did not yet exist when the fraudulent claim of 'Five Arab armies attacking' went into circulation..." --- that is probably true, since there were numerous reports of the primary Arab Aggressors operating inside the territory still under the Mandate, performing reconnaissance,registering artillery points, and recruting insurgents and local national support. (EXAMPLE UK MEMO to UNPC: A/AC.21/UK/10 February 1948 Entry into Palestine of Large Parties of Trained Guerrillas from Adjacent Territory)

(SALIENT POINT)

No matter what your claim about who did what to whom, 70 years ago, the fact of the matter is (right - wrong - indifferent) it will not change the ground truth of today, the political outs established in the past, or further advance the Hostile Arab Palestinian Position that conflict is the only solution and that further negotiations are irrelevant.

As long as you are captured by the political gravitation of the past, you will not --- cannot --- progress to any meaningful settlement consistent with the Resolution of "Settlement by peaceful means of disputes between States" (A/RES/34/102) and the "Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States" (A/RES/25/3625). It is a consequence of the Arab Palestinians specifically, and the general Arab World Generally, that retards their advancement up the Human Development Scale, despite economic advantages and the contributions by donor nations.

"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders,
who are struggling to survive.
These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority."
— Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The U.N. recommendation to partition Palestine was rejected by the Arabs. Many commentators today point to this rejection as constituting a missed “opportunity” for the Arabs to have had their own state. But characterizing this as an “opportunity” for the Arabs is patently ridiculous. The Partition plan was in no way, shape, or form an “opportunity” for the Arabs.

First of all, as already noted, Arabs were a large majority in Palestine at the time, with Jews making up about a third of the population by then, due to massive immigration of Jews from Europe (in 1922, by contrast, a British census showed that Jews represented only about 11 percent of the population).
Additionally, 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.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

• What Zionist offensive?" What "attacking military campaign?"

Palestine was born under belligerent occupation. There were varying degrees of violence required to maintain that occupation.

When Britain was about to leave Palestine Israel rolled its military across Palestine attacking and expelling unarmed civilians from their homes.

 

[Sixties Fan]

• What Zionist offensive?" What "attacking military campaign?"

Palestine was born under belligerent occupation. There were varying degrees of violence required to maintain that occupation.

When Britain was about to leave Palestine Israel rolled its military across Palestine attacking and expelling unarmed civilians from their homes.

Have some hot chocolate and go to sleep

 

[Hollie]

• What Zionist offensive?" What "attacking military campaign?"

Palestine was born under belligerent occupation. There were varying degrees of violence required to maintain that occupation.

When Britain was about to leave Palestine Israel rolled its military across Palestine attacking and expelling unarmed civilians from their homes.

You’re quite ignorant of history. The geographic area of Pal’istan was the subject of invasion by various conquerors, among them being the Turks. And yes, the Turk islamics used varying degrees of violence and repression to maintain control.

 

[Shusha]

Additionally, land ownership statistics from 1945 ...

Repeat after me....

Land ownership is not sovereignty.

Land ownership is not sovereignty.

Land ownership is not sovereignty.

(And P F Tinmore , you know better than to have labelled that post a "Winner".)

Also, those statistics do no accurately reflect the reality of land ownership at the time.

 

[Shusha]

"what I think it says???" You are so remarkably lost in this exchange that I almost pity you...you speak of 'rights' that are completely fictive, the DNA question merely resolves one of the central claims of Zionist polemics: that today's Jews are genetic relations to the ancient Jews, DNA proves not! Yet you appear to dismiss the relevance of the DNA proof because it obliterates a long-standing Zionist lie. But the real gem is your standard reference to native Americans...When the Christian Europeans were killing the native tribes there was no international law...no protections for the property rights of native peoples...however this was not the case in 1948...hence your analogy falls flat, as does your febrile bullshit...

1. DNA evidence has consistently proven that all Jews have Levantine origins (yes, including the Ashkenazi). This particular study that you quote does not say what you think it says. Why? Because there are no Khazars to compare DNA with!

2. If DNA is the definitive determiner of human rights -- let's get ON with testing the Arab Palestinians.

3. International law in 1948 upheld the already existing rights of the Jewish people to their historical and ancestral lands.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ Ventura77, et al,

I don't disagree with all of this.

The U.N. recommendation to partition Palestine was rejected by the Arabs. Many commentators today point to this rejection as constituting a missed “opportunity” for the Arabs to have had their own state. But characterizing this as an “opportunity” for the Arabs is patently ridiculous. The Partition plan was in no way, shape, or form an “opportunity” for the Arabs.

(COMMENT)

There is no question that since the very outset of the San Remo principles, the Arab Higher Committee had stated their objections to the Allied Powers; and in particular, to the selected Mandatory (UK).

Missed opportunities can best be evaluated in the annuals of history. It is about the opportunity costs versus the cost at the end of a long-term outcome.

First of all, as already noted, Arabs were a large majority in Palestine at the time, with Jews making up about a third of the population by then, due to massive immigration of Jews from Europe (in 1922, by contrast, a British census showed that Jews represented only about 11 percent of the population). Additionally, 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.

(COMMENT)

As I have said before, the ownership of property, which is a civil law real estate matter, is completely different from:

• Sovereignty and Independence
• The Protection and Preservation of a Culture​

The idea of the "land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their “Jewish State," was not the specific intent at the time of the San Remo decision. The San Remo decision mandated a "Jewish National Home," which is not the same thing as the "Jewish State." The evolution from the concept of a "National Home" to that of a "Jewish State" was a consequence of the irreconcilable differences and deadly political clashes between the two cultures.

By 1923, when the Arab Palestinian rejected the participation (several times) in the creation of an autonomous government --- to the development of the Muslim Mufti's active participation in antisemitic activities, --- to the Muslim Cleric that assembled the Palestinian Black Hand, the idea of an assimilated population (Jewish - Arab), peacefully living together, was becoming ever more distant possibility.
Included in the 1930 White Paper on the development of self-governing institutions, the following observations was made:

• 
  “that the time has now come when the important question of the establishment of a measure of self-government in Palestine must, in the interests of the community as a whole, be taken in hand without further delay.”

But, there was no question that by the mid-to-late 1930's (sometimes called the Period of Arab Rebellion 1936-1939) The Supreme Arab Committee, (becoming more and more popularly know as the Arab Higher Committee) heavily influenced by the Grand-Mufti of Jerusalem decreed that a called a general strike, which had started earlier --- (territorial wide work stoppage) --- should continue until Jewish immigration was suspended. This was viewed as a form of coercion directed against the Palestine Administration; to attain what they could not achieve through diplomatic of political means. Many outside and independent observers saw this as evidence that the Arab Palestinian was not yet able to stand-alone and an emerging government.

As history has shown, every single regional country immediately surrounding Israel since the end of WWII, as been involved in self-destructive and violent overthrows of the original self-government established at the termination of their associated Mandate.​

On the 1939 outbreak of war, the Jewish people were once again in peril. And it appeared that the principle players in the Arab Community in Palestine, had sided with the Axis Powers. This strained the Jewish-Arab relationship even more. Following the conclusion of WWII, the animosity between the two cultures lead many to believe that a single-state solution would be unworkable and would destabilize almost immediately.

In the thumbnail view, this is what drove support for Jewish Nationalism independent of the Arab Community. No one trusted the Arab Community in Palestine, to act as the guardian of the Jewish People. No one trusted them then, no one trusts them now.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The San Remo decision mandated a "Jewish National Home," which is not the same thing as the "Jewish State." The evolution from the concept of a "National Home" to that of a "Jewish State" was a consequence of the irreconcilable differences and deadly political clashes between the two cultures.

Where do you get this shit. The Zionists wanted an exclusive Jewish state from day one.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This strained the Jewish-Arab relationship even more.

No, it was the settler colonial project that did that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

The San Remo decision mandated a "Jewish National Home," which is not the same thing as the "Jewish State." The evolution from the concept of a "National Home" to that of a "Jewish State" was a consequence of the irreconcilable differences and deadly political clashes between the two cultures.

Where do you get this shit. The Zionists wanted an exclusive Jewish state from day one.

Link?

 

[Hollie]

This strained the Jewish-Arab relationship even more.

No, it was the settler colonial project that did that.

That’s true. The Islamist settler colonial project was interrupted.

The Islamist caliphate had long since collapsed and the Islamists could no longer impose their fascistic system of dhimmitude on the non-Islamists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The San Remo decision mandated a "Jewish National Home," which is not the same thing as the "Jewish State." The evolution from the concept of a "National Home" to that of a "Jewish State" was a consequence of the irreconcilable differences and deadly political clashes between the two cultures.

Where do you get this shit. The Zionists wanted an exclusive Jewish state from day one.

Link?

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

The Zionist Project - 1948

 

[Hollie]

The San Remo decision mandated a "Jewish National Home," which is not the same thing as the "Jewish State." The evolution from the concept of a "National Home" to that of a "Jewish State" was a consequence of the irreconcilable differences and deadly political clashes between the two cultures.

Where do you get this shit. The Zionists wanted an exclusive Jewish state from day one.

Link?

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

The Zionist Project - 1948

So, I will await your usual sidestep when you are tasked with explaining Arab-Israelis in Israel vs. Israeli-Gazans in Gaza’istan.

Thanks. I can hear you stuttering and mumbling already.