Who Is Occupying Who's Land?

[montelatici]

The basic fact is that people from Europe went to Palestine and expelled many of the people that were living there, that happened to be Muslim and Christian. If anyone, including Rocco, can deny this fact, bring it on.

The fact that you see the situation so simple like you just said, shows how brainwashed you are and how much you distort history..

How is this basic fact not a fact? How is it a distortion of the fact when states that people from Europe went to Palestine and expelled many of the people that were living there? It is you that is attempting to distort, justify or otherwise disguise what actually happened.

Because it is not a fact is it, they were invited and only expelled those who would do harm to Israel and it citizens. All legal under International law as well. I don't see you complaining about all the Jews expelled by the Palestinians before this, why is this.

No Jews were expelled by the Palestinians you big bullshitter. That's all you do, you bullshit.

What do you think the Palestinians and Arabs were trying to do in 1948?? Expel every single Jew from the region. But Israel didn't allow for that to happen.
And you, being the biggest bullshitter here, have no right to call anyone else a bullshitter

The Arabs were trying to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Christians and Muslims by the Jews. What do you think they were trying to do?

 

[montelatici]

A Survey of Palestine prepared by the British Mandate for the UN, p. 566.

Are we supposed to believe that dearpalistanremembered.com swill?

No you are supposed to believe the UN Survey. But Foreign Policy Journal's peer reviewed articles, state more or less the same theing.

"In the whole of Palestine at the time UNSCOP issued its report, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land,[7] while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8]

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Foreign Policy Journal

Hey, how about the actual page from the survey. You chumps are out of your league:

View attachment 32262

Which very clearly says that the arab muslims owned 0.8% of the land, and the Jews owned 4.2%. You are mixing up population density with land ownership child in an attempt at proving a LIE

You are repeating a lie over and over again, but the source documents don't lie per Table 2 "Ownership of Land in Palestine": Jews owned less than 7% and Arabs owned more than 90%. Stop looking at "Individual and company investments" which is on the same page but has nothing to do with land ownership.

 

[MJB12741]

Round & round we go arguing over who's land it is. Regarless of what anyone, including myself, has to say about it, the bottom line is this:

Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any givien period in time. Just consider all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force from the native populations.

Thus as long as Israel rules the land in question here ---- The land is Israels! For those who don't accept that, be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

 

[montelatici]

Round & round we go arguing over who's land it is. Regarless of what anyone, including myself, has to say about it, the bottom line is this:

Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any givien period in time. Just consider all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force from the native populations.

Thus as long as Israel rules the land in question here ---- The land is Israels! For those who don't accept that, be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

So finally an Israel Firster confirms that the land was stolen from the rightful non-Jewish owners by the Jews, but that since Israel rules it now, the land is Israel's. So, you can dislike the fact that the non-Jews who were dispossessed are fighting to get their land back, but if you don't accept their right to use any means to get their land back, conflict, rockets, demographics, outside support through sanctions and BDS, etc., be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

 

[MJB12741]

Round & round we go arguing over who's land it is. Regarless of what anyone, including myself, has to say about it, the bottom line is this:

Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any givien period in time. Just consider all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force from the native populations.

Thus as long as Israel rules the land in question here ---- The land is Israels! For those who don't accept that, be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

So finally an Israel Firster confirms that the land was stolen from the rightful non-Jewish owners by the Jews, but that since Israel rules it now, the land is Israel's. So, you can dislike the fact that the non-Jews who were dispossessed are fighting to get their land back, but if you don't accept their right to use any means to get their land back, conflict, rockets, demographics, outside support through sanctions and BDS, etc., be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

You are amazing. Not a word over all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed. Only criticism of Israel for regaining their land by a legal & ethical vote of the member nations of the UN in 1948.

So tell us, how are they treating you on the funny farm?

 

[montelatici]

Round & round we go arguing over who's land it is. Regarless of what anyone, including myself, has to say about it, the bottom line is this:

Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any givien period in time. Just consider all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force from the native populations.

Thus as long as Israel rules the land in question here ---- The land is Israels! For those who don't accept that, be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

So finally an Israel Firster confirms that the land was stolen from the rightful non-Jewish owners by the Jews, but that since Israel rules it now, the land is Israel's. So, you can dislike the fact that the non-Jews who were dispossessed are fighting to get their land back, but if you don't accept their right to use any means to get their land back, conflict, rockets, demographics, outside support through sanctions and BDS, etc., be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

You are amazing. Not a word over all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed. Only criticism of Israel for regaining their land by a legal & ethical vote of the member nations of the UN in 1948.

So tell us, how are they treating you on the funny farm?

1. When were these "stolen Muslim lands conquered by force"? And, are the indigenous people under occupation? Are the Berbers under occupation in North Africa, for example. In any case, much of the Arab conquests were achieved through treaties.

"According to the traditional accounts, much of the Arab conquests was achieved by treaty
and we have texts of many of these agreements. Here, for example, is the treaty that was made by
the Caliph Umar with Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, probably 638:........"

2. As far as forced conversion, well you are one of the less "reflective" (i.e. dumb) people the paper is talking about:

"The idea that Islam was spread by the sword has had wide currency at many diffrenet
times and the impression is still widespread among the less reflective sections of the media and
the wider public that people converted to Islam because they were forced to do so..."

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf

If there had been forced conversion, wouldn't Spain be Muslim today. LOL

 

[montelatici]

Round & round we go arguing over who's land it is. Regarless of what anyone, including myself, has to say about it, the bottom line is this:

Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any givien period in time. Just consider all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force from the native populations.

Thus as long as Israel rules the land in question here ---- The land is Israels! For those who don't accept that, be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

So finally an Israel Firster confirms that the land was stolen from the rightful non-Jewish owners by the Jews, but that since Israel rules it now, the land is Israel's. So, you can dislike the fact that the non-Jews who were dispossessed are fighting to get their land back, but if you don't accept their right to use any means to get their land back, conflict, rockets, demographics, outside support through sanctions and BDS, etc., be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

You are amazing. Not a word over all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed. Only criticism of Israel for regaining their land by a legal & ethical vote of the member nations of the UN in 1948.

So tell us, how are they treating you on the funny farm?

By the way, how can people from Europe regain land that is on another continent? Talk about belonging on a funny far. LOL

 

[Youch]

Europeans and Muslims have both hated Jews, and this monte dude above cites them both as authorities to defend anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Let's pretend for a second this anti-Israel rhetoric is true. Let's pretend Jerusalem is not the birthplace of Judaism.....let's say it was born in a suburb of Madison, Wisconsin. Let's pretend that since 1947 the small nation of Israel has been illegitimate. Let's pretend that population explosions in neighboring nations and regions did not force mass migration to what later became known as Palestine, but instead those growing masses had always occupied the region (and that the erstwhile PLO was actually enamored by peace and harmony). Okay, got the scenario? Given all that, does it justify genocide?

There was no mass migration of non-Jews into Palestine, that is just Zionist propaganda. The UN document "A Survey of Palestine", the last survey published prior to partition, clearly states in Chapter VI, page 140 that “expansion of the Moslem and Christian populations is due mainly to natural increase, while that of the Jews is due mainly to immigration.”

Page 160, and the relevant table are depicted below:

You remind me to forum member Crick whose only soul origin of opinion on a subject is a single source that he cites over and over again.

I'm going to take my time in response....logic often gets lost between posts of HUGE screen shots of old texts. I'll get back to you. I do thank you for sharing those pages with me, however.....I was unaware that such a documents existed.

 

[Phoenall]

Europeans and Muslims have both hated Jews, and this monte dude above cites them both as authorities to defend anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Let's pretend for a second this anti-Israel rhetoric is true. Let's pretend Jerusalem is not the birthplace of Judaism.....let's say it was born in a suburb of Madison, Wisconsin. Let's pretend that since 1947 the small nation of Israel has been illegitimate. Let's pretend that population explosions in neighboring nations and regions did not force mass migration to what later became known as Palestine, but instead those growing masses had always occupied the region (and that the erstwhile PLO was actually enamored by peace and harmony). Okay, got the scenario? Given all that, does it justify genocide?

There was no mass migration of non-Jews into Palestine, that is just Zionist propaganda. The UN document "A Survey of Palestine", the last survey published prior to partition, clearly states in Chapter VI, page 140 that “expansion of the Moslem and Christian populations is due mainly to natural increase, while that of the Jews is due mainly to immigration.”

Page 160, and the relevant table are depicted below:

View attachment 32278
View attachment 32279

Not a UN document though is it as it pre dates the UN by at least 2 years. MUST TRY HARDER

 

[Phoenall]

Round & round we go arguing over who's land it is. Regarless of what anyone, including myself, has to say about it, the bottom line is this:

Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any givien period in time. Just consider all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force from the native populations.

Thus as long as Israel rules the land in question here ---- The land is Israels! For those who don't accept that, be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

So finally an Israel Firster confirms that the land was stolen from the rightful non-Jewish owners by the Jews, but that since Israel rules it now, the land is Israel's. So, you can dislike the fact that the non-Jews who were dispossessed are fighting to get their land back, but if you don't accept their right to use any means to get their land back, conflict, rockets, demographics, outside support through sanctions and BDS, etc., be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

You are amazing. Not a word over all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed. Only criticism of Israel for regaining their land by a legal & ethical vote of the member nations of the UN in 1948.

So tell us, how are they treating you on the funny farm?

By the way, how can people from Europe regain land that is on another continent? Talk about belonging on a funny far. LOL

The same way muslims do of course

 

[Rehmani]

The basic fact is that people from Europe went to Palestine and expelled many of the people that were living there, that happened to be Muslim and Christian. If anyone, including Rocco, can deny this fact, bring it on.

WRONG as the people from Europe did not expel anyone, it was the arab muslims that expelled the Jews from their homes in the M.E. Over 1 million Jews were forcibly expelled from their homes in just the clothes they wore. Many of the people living there were hostile and terrorists so they were evicted from Israel in 1948/1949 under CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW. The true Palestinians stayed in Israel and their descendants are still there to this day as full Israeli citizens. The Christians have faced recent ethnic cleansing in gaza and the west bank at the hands of the arab muslims who have reduced the population from 12% down to 2%. want to argue about these facts child as the evidence is available freely.

"WRONG as the people from Europe did not expel anyone"

What is the difference between expelling and evicting? You continue to just make things up. You are one nutcase bullshitter, that's for sure. There is no evidence you silly little man, if there were you would provide it. You just mouth off a bunch of nonsense.

Montelatici, I agree with you about Phoonall. This is my comments about him "phoonall".
"You only talking nonsense and criticizing Islam and using me because you know I am Muslim and I don't know what your beleave is, as I told you that you are hypocrite and sound you like you are in India.
If you come up front with your religion, if you have any. Then I will fix up your nonsense and then you will learn how smelly you are from the back and from the front.
If you are jewish which I doubt it. But one thing for sure you are paid tout and you are making your living by spreading hate, insulting others and others religions, and spreading misunderstanding among people, how cruel you are you know that you are living evil in human body. You Should be sham full on your life."

 

[montelatici]

Europeans and Muslims have both hated Jews, and this monte dude above cites them both as authorities to defend anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Let's pretend for a second this anti-Israel rhetoric is true. Let's pretend Jerusalem is not the birthplace of Judaism.....let's say it was born in a suburb of Madison, Wisconsin. Let's pretend that since 1947 the small nation of Israel has been illegitimate. Let's pretend that population explosions in neighboring nations and regions did not force mass migration to what later became known as Palestine, but instead those growing masses had always occupied the region (and that the erstwhile PLO was actually enamored by peace and harmony). Okay, got the scenario? Given all that, does it justify genocide?

There was no mass migration of non-Jews into Palestine, that is just Zionist propaganda. The UN document "A Survey of Palestine", the last survey published prior to partition, clearly states in Chapter VI, page 140 that “expansion of the Moslem and Christian populations is due mainly to natural increase, while that of the Jews is due mainly to immigration.”

Page 160, and the relevant table are depicted below:

View attachment 32278
View attachment 32279

Not a UN document though is it as it pre dates the UN by at least 2 years. MUST TRY HARDER

A Survey of Palestine was the official research prepared by Government of Palestinian (then under British military occupation/Mandate) for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946.

You should just shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

 

[docmauser1]

A Survey of Palestine was the official research prepared by Government of Palestinian (then under British military occupation/Mandate) for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946. You should just shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

So, using our honorable P F Tinmore's impeccable logic, who was that sultan, who transferred-bestowed that 90-something % "ownership" on arabs?

 

[montelatici]

A Survey of Palestine was the official research prepared by Government of Palestinian (then under British military occupation/Mandate) for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946. You should just shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

So, using our honorable P F Tinmore's impeccable logic, who was that sultan, who transferred-bestowed that 90-something % "ownership" on arabs?

You probably should ask the British survey team (some members might still be alive) who reviewed the land records to determine who owned the land. But, the result of that review (page 566 which I have provided) is the Survey itself, which was delivered to the UN in 1946.

 

[docmauser1]

A Survey of Palestine was the official research prepared by Government of Palestinian (then under British military occupation/Mandate) for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946. You should just shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

So, using our honorable P F Tinmore's impeccable logic, who was that sultan, who transferred-bestowed that 90-something % "ownership" on arabs?

You probably should ask the British survey team (some members might still be alive) who reviewed the land records to determine who owned the land. But, the result of that review (page 566 which I have provided) is the Survey itself, which was delivered to the UN in 1946.

With no mention of that sultan sugar daddy, of course, which makes the "survey" highly suspect, as it implies that, arabs were all fat "saudi sheikhs" to "own" 90%(!) of all(!) palestine! That dearpalistanforgotten.com site still has a lot to learn about selling bridges and snake oil, of course.

 

[montelatici]

A Survey of Palestine was the official research prepared by Government of Palestinian (then under British military occupation/Mandate) for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946. You should just shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

So, using our honorable P F Tinmore's impeccable logic, who was that sultan, who transferred-bestowed that 90-something % "ownership" on arabs?

You probably should ask the British survey team (some members might still be alive) who reviewed the land records to determine who owned the land. But, the result of that review (page 566 which I have provided) is the Survey itself, which was delivered to the UN in 1946.

With no mention of that sultan sugar daddy, of course, which makes the "survey" highly suspect, as it implies that, arabs were all fat "saudi sheikhs" to "own" 90%(!) of all(!) palestine! That dearpalistanforgotten.com site still has a lot to learn about selling bridges and snake oil, of course.

What does the Sultan have to do with a British survey of 1946?

The site is called:
"THE ANCIENT WORLD ONLINE" (AWOL), nothing to do with Palestine.
AWOL is a project of Charles E. Jones, Tombros Librarian for Classics and Humanities at the Pattee Library, Penn State University

The 1946 Survey is a public document anyone can have access to from many sites.

If you would stop making things up and occasionally provide back up to your ridiculous assertions, oh wait, all you have to fall back on is Zionist propaganda. We provide source material that documents fact. Isn't that annoying that we have facts and you have fiction.

 

[MJB12741]

Round & round we go arguing over who's land it is. Regarless of what anyone, including myself, has to say about it, the bottom line is this:

Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any givien period in time. Just consider all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force from the native populations.

Thus as long as Israel rules the land in question here ---- The land is Israels! For those who don't accept that, be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

So finally an Israel Firster confirms that the land was stolen from the rightful non-Jewish owners by the Jews, but that since Israel rules it now, the land is Israel's. So, you can dislike the fact that the non-Jews who were dispossessed are fighting to get their land back, but if you don't accept their right to use any means to get their land back, conflict, rockets, demographics, outside support through sanctions and BDS, etc., be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

You are amazing. Not a word over all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed. Only criticism of Israel for regaining their land by a legal & ethical vote of the member nations of the UN in 1948.

So tell us, how are they treating you on the funny farm?

1. When were these "stolen Muslim lands conquered by force"? And, are the indigenous people under occupation? Are the Berbers under occupation in North Africa, for example. In any case, much of the Arab conquests were achieved through treaties.

"According to the traditional accounts, much of the Arab conquests was achieved by treaty
and we have texts of many of these agreements. Here, for example, is the treaty that was made by
the Caliph Umar with Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, probably 638:........"

2. As far as forced conversion, well you are one of the less "reflective" (i.e. dumb) people the paper is talking about:

"The idea that Islam was spread by the sword has had wide currency at many diffrenet
times and the impression is still widespread among the less reflective sections of the media and
the wider public that people converted to Islam because they were forced to do so..."

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf

If there had been forced conversion, wouldn't Spain be Muslim today. LOL

Golly gee, I wonder whatever happened to the indigenous Zoroastrians of Iran? Please eduacte us with your unbiased wisdom. Heh Heh!

 

[docmauser1]

A Survey of Palestine was the official research prepared by Government of Palestinian (then under British military occupation/Mandate) for the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) in 1946. You should just shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

So, using our honorable P F Tinmore's impeccable logic, who was that sultan, who transferred-bestowed that 90-something % "ownership" on arabs?

You probably should ask the British survey team (some members might still be alive) who reviewed the land records to determine who owned the land. But, the result of that review (page 566 which I have provided) is the Survey itself, which was delivered to the UN in 1946.

With no mention of that sultan sugar daddy, of course, which makes the "survey" highly suspect, as it implies that, arabs were all fat "saudi sheikhs" to "own" 90%(!) of all(!) palestine! That dearpalistanforgotten.com site still has a lot to learn about selling bridges and snake oil, of course.

What does the Sultan have to do with a British survey of 1946?

No problem declarations of income will suffice, since we can't take for granted a drivelous allusion of some palistan.com that arabs were all those fat "saudi sheikhs" to "own" 90%(!) of all(!) palestine(!), of course.

 

[montelatici]

Round & round we go arguing over who's land it is. Regarless of what anyone, including myself, has to say about it, the bottom line is this:

Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any givien period in time. Just consider all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force from the native populations.

Thus as long as Israel rules the land in question here ---- The land is Israels! For those who don't accept that, be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

So finally an Israel Firster confirms that the land was stolen from the rightful non-Jewish owners by the Jews, but that since Israel rules it now, the land is Israel's. So, you can dislike the fact that the non-Jews who were dispossessed are fighting to get their land back, but if you don't accept their right to use any means to get their land back, conflict, rockets, demographics, outside support through sanctions and BDS, etc., be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

You are amazing. Not a word over all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed. Only criticism of Israel for regaining their land by a legal & ethical vote of the member nations of the UN in 1948.

So tell us, how are they treating you on the funny farm?

1. When were these "stolen Muslim lands conquered by force"? And, are the indigenous people under occupation? Are the Berbers under occupation in North Africa, for example. In any case, much of the Arab conquests were achieved through treaties.

"According to the traditional accounts, much of the Arab conquests was achieved by treaty
and we have texts of many of these agreements. Here, for example, is the treaty that was made by
the Caliph Umar with Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, probably 638:........"

2. As far as forced conversion, well you are one of the less "reflective" (i.e. dumb) people the paper is talking about:

"The idea that Islam was spread by the sword has had wide currency at many diffrenet
times and the impression is still widespread among the less reflective sections of the media and
the wider public that people converted to Islam because they were forced to do so..."

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf

If there had been forced conversion, wouldn't Spain be Muslim today. LOL

Golly gee, I wonder whatever happened to the indigenous Zoroastrians of Iran? Please eduacte us with your unbiased wisdom. Heh Heh!

They converted to Islam. What do you think happened to them?

 

[MJB12741]

Round & round we go arguing over who's land it is. Regarless of what anyone, including myself, has to say about it, the bottom line is this:

Any & all land belongs to whoever rules it at any givien period in time. Just consider all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force from the native populations.

Thus as long as Israel rules the land in question here ---- The land is Israels! For those who don't accept that, be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

So finally an Israel Firster confirms that the land was stolen from the rightful non-Jewish owners by the Jews, but that since Israel rules it now, the land is Israel's. So, you can dislike the fact that the non-Jews who were dispossessed are fighting to get their land back, but if you don't accept their right to use any means to get their land back, conflict, rockets, demographics, outside support through sanctions and BDS, etc., be my guest at making your lives miserable over it.

You are amazing. Not a word over all the stolen Muslim lands conquered by force where the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed. Only criticism of Israel for regaining their land by a legal & ethical vote of the member nations of the UN in 1948.

So tell us, how are they treating you on the funny farm?

1. When were these "stolen Muslim lands conquered by force"? And, are the indigenous people under occupation? Are the Berbers under occupation in North Africa, for example. In any case, much of the Arab conquests were achieved through treaties.

"According to the traditional accounts, much of the Arab conquests was achieved by treaty
and we have texts of many of these agreements. Here, for example, is the treaty that was made by
the Caliph Umar with Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, probably 638:........"

2. As far as forced conversion, well you are one of the less "reflective" (i.e. dumb) people the paper is talking about:

"The idea that Islam was spread by the sword has had wide currency at many diffrenet
times and the impression is still widespread among the less reflective sections of the media and
the wider public that people converted to Islam because they were forced to do so..."

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf

If there had been forced conversion, wouldn't Spain be Muslim today. LOL

Golly gee, I wonder whatever happened to the indigenous Zoroastrians of Iran? Please eduacte us with your unbiased wisdom. Heh Heh!

They converted to Islam. What do you think happened to them?

How do ya like that? The Zoroastrians of Iran converted to Islam during the Muslim invasion to steal their land. And here I actually believed the the majoriity of the several million Zoroastrians were massacred by the Muslims or fled to India for a safe haven to become the Parsis.

I tell ya there is so much for us to learn from Monte. And so much fun doing so. Heh Heh!

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion Alien in Their Homeland CAIS