Who Are The Palestinians?

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK --- the claim is:

• gun in their face
• foreign money ring in their nose
• say that they cannot build a state
• they are incompetent

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis. The two parties made different choices. The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to: "Where do you get that crap."

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship. The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis. The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance. This money is not forced upon them at gun-point. The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it. Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests. What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination. There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​

Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.

Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.

Israelis have been defending themselves since their inception. What's your point.

BTW, can you give me some examples of the Palestinians having defended themselves?

"Rocco, you always start with a lie"

Tinmore, 99% of what you say is a lie. You're ragging on Rocco because you simply cannot accept the truth.

What did I say that isn't true?

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK --- the claim is:

• gun in their face
• foreign money ring in their nose
• say that they cannot build a state
• they are incompetent

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis. The two parties made different choices. The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to: "Where do you get that crap."

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship. The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis. The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance. This money is not forced upon them at gun-point. The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it. Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests. What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination. There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could. Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​

Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.

Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.

(COMMENT)

The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers. Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."

The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation. In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council. In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship (in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army") and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised. In the case of Palestine, (within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers) on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established. Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.

Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces (British Third Army) engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915). British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal. The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.

Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived (8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently). But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege. However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Muslim75]

Let the truth be known to all.

Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine

I am Muslim. Jerusalem and Palstine are holy and sacred in Islam. Jerusalem is holy and sacred in Christianity and Judaism. Islam does not claim to be a religion that started in 609. Islam claims to be the sa,e religion of Abraham, the same religion of Moses, of David, of Solomon, of Jesus, of John, etc...In 609, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) received the mission to close prophethood. He is the Seal of the Prophets. That is why Islam has a claim to Palestine and Jerusalem.

In other words, Judaism and Christianity are not true today, to Jesus, Moses and Abraham. Their messages were changed over tiome by people with more or less political agendas. Jesus, Moses and Abraham gave the good news that one day Muhammad would come. But people hided that after them, out of jealousy of Muhammad, the Arab Prophet. This is why even as a child, the Jews were eager to have Muhammad killed, but Allah (God) protected him very meticulously.

Another proof of the deceit is that Christians know well that Jesus was hated and in danger of being killed, and he was overpowered by the Jews, and yet they still think the Bible was never changed by some people with agendas.

Let me precise that Jesus was not killed, according to Islam, he escaped crucifixion. The one who betrayed him was crucified in his place after God made him to look like Jesus.

 

[Phoenall]

What does that have to do with anything? They don't even have a military

Bingo!

It has always been Israel's mooched military attacking Palestinian civilians starting before 1948.

Link?

Speaking if attacking, it was the Arabs who were attacking Jewish civilians bexore 1948 and before any Arab was attacked.
But you're deflecting. Palestinians are still the biggest moochers/cry babies of the world.
Not my fault you can't handle the truth.
Speaking of mooching, where does Hamas get their rockets/ weapons from? Or the money for them?

Do they get $3B a year like the mooch capital of the world gets?

And besides, Palestine gets no military aid.

Palestine IS the mooch capital of the world. They get their weapons from Iran and Lebanon. Not to mention they get TONS of aid from many different countries/organizations around the world.

International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation?

ISLAMONAZI LIES AND PROPAGANDA just look at the source.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.

International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation?

(COMMENT)

The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin (Palestine Studies TV) opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group. And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute (the interviewee) who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.

I don't agree Ms Hijab. The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent. And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty (ie the stand alone clause). This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh jeeze, another hit piece.

Of course you do not agree. It does not conform to the Israeli propaganda that you always pimp.

So where is the evidence from a non partisan source showing the same thing, as soon as it is pointed out that this is a complete fabrication you go demented and start throwing around false claims.

If the Palestinian arab muslims were capable of standing alone then they woulkd have done so from 1988, but seeing as they are so heavily in debt that the sun will go cold before they manage to pay it off then they never will. The P.A. knows this as does the UN, and they are hiding the facts from the world in case the whole show collapses as aid dries up

 

[Phoenall]

Let the truth be known to all.

Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine

I am Muslim. Jerusalem and Palstine are holy and sacred in Islam. Jerusalem is holy and sacred in Christianity and Judaism. Islam does not claim to be a religion that started in 609. Islam claims to be the sa,e religion of Abraham, the same religion of Moses, of David, of Solomon, of Jesus, of John, etc...In 609, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) received the mission to close prophethood. He is the Seal of the Prophets. That is why Islam has a claim to Palestine and Jerusalem.

In other words, Judaism and Christianity are not true today, to Jesus, Moses and Abraham. Their messages were changed over tiome by people with more or less political agendas. Jesus, Moses and Abraham gave the good news that one day Muhammad would come. But people hided that after them, out of jealousy of Muhammad, the Arab Prophet. This is why even as a child, the Jews were eager to have Muhammad killed, but Allah (God) protected him very meticulously.

Another proof of the deceit is that Christians know well that Jesus was hated and in danger of being killed, and he was overpowered by the Jews, and yet they still think the Bible was never changed by some people with agendas.

Let me precise that Jesus was not killed, according to Islam, he escaped crucifixion. The one who betrayed him was crucified in his place after God made him to look like Jesus.

Then show were Jerusalem and Palestine are mentioned in the koran and hadiths, and explain how the mosque on the temple mount was not built until 30 years after the death of Mohamed.

What did he prophesy then if he is the last prophet, tell the board something that was not known before Mohamed invented islam.

Care to explain why the Koran of today is radically different to the Koran of the 7C. It is even in your own hadiths that it has been altered and parts removed by successive leaders. Ayesha states that certain Surah's of the Koran contained many more verses than the korans of today. This must mean that Islam's message has also been changed by people with their own agenda.


So when can I expect your answer to the above facts that show islam to be a false religion based on a moon god, 3 crane goddesses and a psychopaths bloodlust.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I consider the Arab Palestinian --- at some point --- must be accountable and responsible for their actions.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a variation on the theme I discussed in Posting #4 in the "Argument Can Israel Survive Without the Palestinian Authority?" Discussion Thread.

International Aid & the Palestinians: Supporting Israel's Occupation?

(COMMENT)

The host of the media video clip, Clea Thouin (Palestine Studies TV) opens with the remark --- that since 1993, the Palestinians have received about $15 Billion in foreign aid from the donor group. And Nadia Hijab, Senior Fellow at the Palestinian Institute (the interviewee) who takes the position that the $15 Billion goes to support the Israeli Occupation.

I don't agree Ms Hijab. The position that Nadia Hijab takes can only be true if the Palestinians simultaneously claim that they had no control over how the aid is spent. And if that is the case, then the State of Palestine has never been able to meet the Article 22 criteria for independence and sovereignty (ie the stand alone clause). This is further substantiated by Ms Hijab, in the admission that the Palestinians are totally dependent on the aid and incapable of running the country without it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh jeeze, another hit piece.

Of course you do not agree. It does not conform to the Israeli propaganda that you always pimp.

(QUESTION)

If the donor aid is so terrible and so damaging, then why do they accept it?

Most Respectfully,
R

What choices do the Palestinians have with a gun in their face?

They have it in their power to be free once and for all by simply accepting International law and agreeing to peace talks and mutual borders

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- come on now. The world is damned for giving the donor dollars to the Palestinians who then are accused of collaborating with the Israelis and supporting the Israeli Occupation. On the other hand, you claim that the Palestinians have "no choice" but to accept the donor dollars --- which they then use to collaborate and support occupation.

What choices do the Palestinians have with a gun in their face?

(COMMENT)

In both cases, the Arab Palestinians accepts absolutely no responsibility for the consequences of their action. And in both cases, either the donors, the donors and Israel, and the US are at fault.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

From the evidence plainly available on the internet. If they wanted a state they could have had one in 1948, 1988, 1999 and at any time since. But while they engage in terrorism, violence, belligerence and propaganda they will never get a state. They are to blame themselves for the situation they are currently in, and if the world stopped all the aid going to the west bank and gaza the people would slowly starve to death while the leaders grew fatter.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK --- the claim is:

• gun in their face
• foreign money ring in their nose
• say that they cannot build a state
• they are incompetent

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis. The two parties made different choices. The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to: "Where do you get that crap."

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship. The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis. The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance. This money is not forced upon them at gun-point. The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it. Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests. What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination. There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​

Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.

Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.

So how did the Palestinians manage to get Jordan then ?

Why do you always blame Britain when they were just the Mandatory power and acted on orders from the legal land owners ?

The Palestinians have initiated the aggression from the late 1890's and this time the Jews fought back

The Zionists watched as the British caged boatloads of Jews in death camps while allowing many tens of thousands of arab muslims flood into Palestine from Syria and Jordan.


That is the reality, not your made up islamonazi fantasy

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK --- the claim is:

• gun in their face
• foreign money ring in their nose
• say that they cannot build a state
• they are incompetent

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis. The two parties made different choices. The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to: "Where do you get that crap."

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship. The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis. The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance. This money is not forced upon them at gun-point. The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it. Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests. What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination. There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​

Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.

Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.

Israelis have been defending themselves since their inception. What's your point.

BTW, can you give me some examples of the Palestinians having defended themselves?

"Rocco, you always start with a lie"

Tinmore, 99% of what you say is a lie. You're ragging on Rocco because you simply cannot accept the truth.

What did I say that isn't true?

99% of it as you never back it up with non partisan links

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK --- the claim is:

• gun in their face
• foreign money ring in their nose
• say that they cannot build a state
• they are incompetent

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis. The two parties made different choices. The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to: "Where do you get that crap."

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship. The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis. The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance. This money is not forced upon them at gun-point. The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it. Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests. What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination. There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could. Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.

LINK

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK --- the claim is:

• gun in their face
• foreign money ring in their nose
• say that they cannot build a state
• they are incompetent

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis. The two parties made different choices. The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to: "Where do you get that crap."

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship. The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis. The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance. This money is not forced upon them at gun-point. The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it. Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests. What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination. There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could. Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.

LINK

1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​

Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.

Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.

(COMMENT)

The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers. Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."

The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation. In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council. In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship (in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army") and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised. In the case of Palestine, (within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers) on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established. Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.

Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces (British Third Army) engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915). British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal. The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.

Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived (8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently). But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege. However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​

Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.

For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK --- the claim is:

• gun in their face
• foreign money ring in their nose
• say that they cannot build a state
• they are incompetent

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis. The two parties made different choices. The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to: "Where do you get that crap."

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship. The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis. The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance. This money is not forced upon them at gun-point. The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it. Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests. What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination. There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could. Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.

Do you have any links to back this bullshit propaganda up?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​

Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.

Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.

(COMMENT)

The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers. Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."

The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation. In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council. In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship (in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army") and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised. In the case of Palestine, (within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers) on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established. Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.

Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces (British Third Army) engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915). British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal. The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.

Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived (8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently). But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege. However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​

Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.

For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Trampling on Palestinian rights.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK --- the claim is:

• gun in their face
• foreign money ring in their nose
• say that they cannot build a state
• they are incompetent

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis. The two parties made different choices. The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to: "Where do you get that crap."

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship. The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis. The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance. This money is not forced upon them at gun-point. The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it. Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests. What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination. There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could. Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.

LINK

1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thanks for posting thag link. If you read it, you will see that the revolt was started by the Palestinians. In fact, ALL the violence was started by the Arabs.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​

Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.

Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.

(COMMENT)

The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers. Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."

The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation. In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council. In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship (in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army") and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised. In the case of Palestine, (within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers) on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established. Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.

Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces (British Third Army) engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915). British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal. The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.

Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived (8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently). But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege. However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​

Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.

For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Funny, because I havr never seen you refute Rocco's posts. All you do is call his posts propaganda, while you post Palestinian propaganda, yet you cannot refute a thing that he says.
Like most pro Palestinians, you cannot handle the truth.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations, but I never start with the intent to deceive anyone about anything (lie).

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis.​

Rocco, you always start with a lie them form your conclusion based on false premise.

Palestine was born under British occupation. Britain (a long time colonialists and world superpower) landed in Palestine in full military gear and the Balfour Declaration in its pocket. Britain kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist agenda. Meanwhile the Zionists were importing foreign settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.

The Palestinians have been defending themselves from that aggression until today.

(COMMENT)

The concept of Palestine was established at the San Remo Conference --- decided on 24 April 1920 --- to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] to Great Britain; within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers. Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was not an "occupation;" but a civil administration of a "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves."

The Mandate differs significantly from an Occupation. In a "Mandate", the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory's Civil authority and is explicitly defined in each case by the Council. In an "Occupation" the territory is placed under the authority of the dominate military governorship (in terms of the Article 42 of the Hague Convention --- a "hostile Army") and extends only to the territory where such military authority has been established and can be exercised. In the case of Palestine, (within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers) on July 1st, 1920, by order of His Majesty's Government a "Civil Administration" was established. Note, this is two years before the Mandate for Palestine was even written.

Between October 1914 and October 1918 --- British Expeditionary Forces (British Third Army) engaged the elements of the Ottoman Fourth Army, which ultimately lead to the military defeat of Ottoman Forces in the Region and all threats to British defenses on the Suez Canal (February 1915). British Expeditionary Forces did not engage the Ottoman Fourth Army to implement the Balfour Declaration; but to advance the southern forward edge of battle from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean and protect the Suez Canal. The decision to implement the Balfour Declaration had not yet been adopted by the Allied Powers, nor had the League of Nations Covenant been published.

Now it is true, that between September 1920 and May 1921, about 10,000 Jewish immigrants arrived (8084 came under the auspices of the Zionist Organization and 1815 came independently). But this is hardly the "boatload with the stated goal of creating a Jewish state" you allege. However, it was pursuant to the intent of the Allied Powers "to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, we may disagree on our interpretations,..​

Indeed, because you can't get your face out of Israeli propaganda.

For Britain when it changed from an occupation to a civil administration it was merely a name change. It kept its military there and in fact increased troop strength in the '30s to better trample on the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Can you provide some evidence on Britain trampling on their rights?

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK --- the claim is:

• gun in their face
• foreign money ring in their nose
• say that they cannot build a state
• they are incompetent

Rocco, Rocco, Rocco, The Palestinians have an Israeli gun in their face and on the other hand they have a foreign money ring in their nose.

Then you repeatedly say that they cannot build a state because they are incompetent.

Where do you get that crap?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians started out at the very same point in the sovereignty and independence process as did the Israelis. The two parties made different choices. The outcome of the nation that each party has established over the last half century is the practical and tangible evidence and answer to: "Where do you get that crap."

This is a case where the parties could have a benevolent relationship, or --- a belligerent relationship. The extent to which "gun in their face" was an issue --- is based on the threat posed by the Arab Palestinian to the Israelis. The Palestinians have not made any effort to conceal the fact that they are in a jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis.

The extent to which "foreign money ring in their nose" is an issue --- is based on the Arab Palestinian acceptance. This money is not forced upon them at gun-point. The Arab Palestinian can turn-down the money at any time.

Periodically --- Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas threatens Israel with disbanding his government or some portion of it. Palestinians living under Israeli rule are increasingly questioning whether the PA is truly looking out for their interests. What is different this time around is the threat to discontinue security coordination. There is no question that there is an increasingly unpopular attitude, as many Arab Palestinians feel the arrangement assists the Israeli military in control over the occupied territory.

The fact that the Palestinians, after a quarter century, still don't have full recognition of the state, is a epitaph to its competence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well no they didn't. By the 1940's the Palestinian attempt at independance, begun in 1936 had been all but brutally suppressed by the Mandatory power charged with facilitating that independence with the aid of Zionist Jewish militias and death squads. The Palestinian leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile and Palestinian civil society/institutions in ruins. Meanwhile the Zionists had greatly strengthened their position, gaining training and experience from the British. By the time the British abandoned the Mandate, the Zionists in Palestine were the strongest military force in the region and more than ready to take over. The threat had always come from the Zionist Jewish colonists; the Palestinians merely tried to defend themselves as best they could. Characterising this as a "jihadist and armed struggle with the Israelis". Is pandering to Zionist propagandist/Hasbarist historiography. There was never any possibility of a "benevolent relationship" with Zionism, whose aim from the outset was ethnic cleansing of the native population in favour of European Jewish colonisation.

LINK

1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thanks for posting thag link. If you read it, you will see that the revolt was started by the Palestinians. ...

Wow, no shit Sherlock, That's why it was called the "ARAB revolt in Palestine". Oh, BTW, go argue with Phoney, HE claims "Palestinians" were what Arabs called Jewish people at the time.