Who Are The Palestinians?

[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

(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.

And it was that revolt that started causing them problems. I've read the link you posted before.

 

[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

1936 39 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time

 

[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

(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.

And you have as yet not been able to prove otherwise, so you resort to abuse and flaming

 

[aris2chat]

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.

Israel gets their weapons from Germany, France and the US, China, and India.

All paid for of course, so why did you miss that little part out ? Unlike the Palestinian arab muslims who beg from iran all the weapons they can get their hands on so they can target Israeli children

Just so they can add to the body count.


Fatah Doubles Body Count of Terror Massacre in Lauding Attack
Fatah fudges number of Israelis murdered from 37 to 80 in Mughrabi attack, holds ceremony at square named for her in Ramallah.
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services22


By Ari Yashar

First Publish: 3/11/2015, 9:14 PM

Dalal Mughrabi hero worship in Ramallah (file)
Issam Rimawi/Flash 90


Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction took the unusual step on Tuesday of more than doubling the number of Israelismurdered in a brutal terrorist attack from 1978, while glorifying the massacre on its anniversary.

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) revealed that Fatah praised the March 1978 attack, which was committed by a group of Fatah terrorists from Lebanon led by Dalal Mughrabi.

The terrorists hijacked a bus on Israel's coastal highway, and when confronted by the IDF they slaughtered 37 civilians, 12 of them children, wounding another 70 before being neutralized. The attack is known as the Coastal Road massacre in Israel.

But in praising the attack, Fatah on Tuesday inflated the numbers, writing on Facebook "a huge self-sacrificing operation in Herzliya, Tel Aviv. 80 Israelis killed and over 100 wounded



Fatah Doubles Body Count of Terror Massacre - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva

They always have

I remember the stories of Mughrabi. One women in the bus tried to throw her infant out of the bus to save it, Mughrabi threw it in the fire and laughed when the skull popped from the heat.

 

[MJB12741]

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.

Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time

So true. Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians. Want peace? Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Palestinian Village Histories: Geographies of the Displaced

 

[theliq]

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.

Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time

So true. Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians. Want peace? Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

First you have Stated before on this site,THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS IN WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL(MORONIC I KNOW)........

 

[theliq]

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.

Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time

So true. Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians. Want peace? Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

First you have Stated before on this site,THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS IN WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL(MORONIC I KNOW)........

Then you say.....return to their, the Palestinian NATIVE HOMELANDS.................You represent all that is wrong in Message Boards like these.

Just NOT GOOD ENOUGH........H.I.M theliq

 

[theliq]

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).

(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.

Would that be the Jewish Palestinians as they were the only ones known by that name at that time

So true. Not a single Muslim Palestinian among the indigenous Palestinians. Want peace? Israel must find some way to convince the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinian squatters a right of return back to their native homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

First you have Stated before on this site,THERE WERE NO PALESTINIANS IN WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL(MORONIC I KNOW)........

Then you say.....return to their, the Palestinian NATIVE HOMELANDS.................You represent all that is wrong in Message Boards like these.

Just NOT GOOD ENOUGH........H.I.M theliq

As for my friend Hoss,agreeing with some of your comments,well you should stop plying Hoss with LIQ

 

[P F Tinmore]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

 

[Mindful]

There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.

What about their 1948 declaration of independence?

Are you German Tinmore?

Good call.

My mother's father was born in Germany and came to the US as a teen after WWI.

My mother's mother was Pennsylvania Dutch.

My father's mother was English.

My father's father was Scotch.

Scottish.

Scotch is the drink.

 

[Mindful]

Hi guys—

Hamas has a media campaign up. They are taking questions via twitter with Hashtag #AskHamas .

I don’t tweet, but this is a good opportunity to ask them all sorts of questions they Don’t want to answer. And of course, pass it ON!


Source: Hamas Social Media Campaign Backfires Hilariously Tablet Magazine

 

[montelatici]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Kind of like complaining about the massacre of the English at Jamestown and the subsequent Indian attacks on European settlers.

 

[Mindful]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Kind of like complaining about the massacre of the English at Jamestown and the subsequent Indian attacks on European settlers.

No it isn't like that atall.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was never a case in which the Arab Palestinian attempted to use their right of self-determination, in an internationally accepted way, and was denied.

What about their 1948 declaration of independence?

Are you German Tinmore?

Good call.

My mother's father was born in Germany and came to the US as a teen after WWI.

My mother's mother was Pennsylvania Dutch.

My father's mother was English.

My father's father was Scotch.

Scottish.

Scotch is the drink.

And a tape.

BTW, Thanks. I have never been there myself.

 

[Phoenall]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

 

[Phoenall]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Kind of like complaining about the massacre of the English at Jamestown and the subsequent Indian attacks on European settlers.

Not really as the British had not been getting massacred by the Indians for 1300 years as a direct result of some mentally deranged false prophet commanding them to kill them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So what about the 1929 massacres of Jews, the civil uprising of 1931 and all the other arab nationalist violent protests ?

Wouldn't have happened without the Zionist invasion.

What Zionist invasion would that be, how about a link showing there was a Zionist invasion and not a migration at the request of the land legal owners ?

Who would those "legal" land owners be.

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any land.