A " Palestinian State" is DOA

[toastman]

So lets say it doesnt say Israel or Jewish State. What's your point ?

The LoNs, Balfour Declaration nor the San Remo conference ever intended on creating a jewish state. They only intended on creating a "jewish home" where jews could live in concert with their non jewish neighbors under one nation.

Any assertions to the contrary is just more hasbara.

Thank you.

Thank you for what ??

Weather it said Jewish State or didn't has absolutely NO relevance to anything concerning the fact that Israel IS a Jewish State

 

[P F Tinmore]

So lets say it doesnt say Israel or Jewish State. What's your point ?

The LoNs, Balfour Declaration nor the San Remo conference ever intended on creating a jewish state. They only intended on creating a "jewish home" where jews could live in concert with their non jewish neighbors under one nation.

Any assertions to the contrary is just more hasbara.

Yes, and it was the Jews who accepted the 1947 partition plan to ling alongside the Palestinians Arabs.
The Palestinians were the ones who rejected it .

Where does it say that Palestine is not a state without resolution 181?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The LoNs, Balfour Declaration nor the San Remo conference ever intended on creating a jewish state. They only intended on creating a "jewish home" where jews could live in concert with their non jewish neighbors under one nation.

Any assertions to the contrary is just more hasbara.

Thank you.

Thank you for what ??

Weather it said Jewish State or didn't has absolutely NO relevance to anything concerning the fact that Israel IS a Jewish State

And who gave them the land to do that?

 

[Roudy]

OK, I still do not see "Israel" or "Jewish state."

So lets say it doesnt say Israel or Jewish State. What's your point ?

The LoNs, Balfour Declaration nor the San Remo conference ever intended on creating a jewish state. They only intended on creating a "jewish home" where jews could live in concert with their non jewish neighbors under one nation.

Any assertions to the contrary is just more hasbara.

Nope, they carved out Jordan and called it a Jew free state, and they gave the land east of Jordan, to the a mews, which happened to be their ancestral and holy land, for the last 3000 years. Arabs wanted there to be NO Jewish state, period.

It was and is never about this invention called "Palestine", it was and is always about Arab Islamic hatred and intolerance towards the OTHER. When you look at it from this perspective, their actions throughout history of this conflict, leading up to today become quite clear. And why there will never be peace. They simply cannot accept the existence of a non Muslim state, period end of story. Now ask the Israelis if they give a flying fuck what Muslims "think".

Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage

 

[toastman]

Thank you.

Thank you for what ??

Weather it said Jewish State or didn't has absolutely NO relevance to anything concerning the fact that Israel IS a Jewish State

And who gave them the land to do that?

I've asked you so many times where it says that the Palestinians had to have given Israel land for Israel to declare independence.

All I get is song and dance

 

[toastman]

The LoNs, Balfour Declaration nor the San Remo conference ever intended on creating a jewish state. They only intended on creating a "jewish home" where jews could live in concert with their non jewish neighbors under one nation.

Any assertions to the contrary is just more hasbara.

Yes, and it was the Jews who accepted the 1947 partition plan to ling alongside the Palestinians Arabs.
The Palestinians were the ones who rejected it .

Where does it say that Palestine is not a state without resolution 181?

I didn't say that

Your question is as you always say, based on false premise...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, and it was the Jews who accepted the 1947 partition plan to ling alongside the Palestinians Arabs.
The Palestinians were the ones who rejected it .

Where does it say that Palestine is not a state without resolution 181?

I didn't say that

Your question is as you always say, based on false premise...

So the Palestinians could reject the partition and still be a state?

 

[toastman]

Where does it say that Palestine is not a state without resolution 181?

I didn't say that

Your question is as you always say, based on false premise...

So the Palestinians could reject the partition and still be a state?

As far as I know yes.

But in order to become a state, don't you need to declare independence ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I didn't say that

Your question is as you always say, based on false premise...

So the Palestinians could reject the partition and still be a state?

As far as I know yes.

But in order to become a state, don't you need to declare independence ?

Indeed they did in 1948 before anyone else claimed that land.

 

[Alfalfa]

It wasn't until 25 years later during which rich zionists backed by the Rothschild family were able to buy enough influence and politicians, particularly in the US gubmint, that an israeli state was considered.

Even then the UN resolution 181 was nothing more then a study in international bribary, blackmail and intimidation. Led by financial resources of the zionists and the post WWII power of the US countries were bribedm threatened and intimidated into voting FOR the resolution and when that failed, to abstain.

The vote required a 2/3ds majority, 33 voted for, 11 against with 11 ABSTETNIONS/ABSENT. Without the abstentions, the vote would not have carried.

Reports of pressure for the Plan


Proponents of the Plan reportedly put pressure on nations to vote yes to the Partition Plan. A telegram signed by 26 US senators with influence on foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the partition plan.[23] Many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them:

United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me."[24]
India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she voted right".[25]
Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[26] Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government[21][23]
Philippines (Vote: For): In the days before the vote, the Philippines' representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated "We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility". After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed.[23]
Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may have secured Haiti's vote for partition.[27]
France (Vote: For): Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as the United States' ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and it's front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might cause planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit, not to materialise. Previously, in order to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.[20]

IMO israel is an illegitimate state, bought and paid for by wealthy zionists in concert with their primarily bought and paid for corrupt US politicians and democrat administration.

Does anyone have any doubts as to why American jews demonstrate such loyalty and fealty to the dem party even after 68 years?

 

[Roudy]

Thank you.

Thank you for what ??

Weather it said Jewish State or didn't has absolutely NO relevance to anything concerning the fact that Israel IS a Jewish State

And who gave them the land to do that?

Palestinians didn't have any land to give, in fact there was no such thing as a Palestinian back then, unless of course you're talking about Jews.

The entire region which was the remnants of the collapsed Ottoman Empire was controlled and carved out by the British and the French, with the approval of the United Nations and international community. Around the same time Israel was re established, so were many Arab Islamic countries such as Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq, Pakistan, Etc. However the Arabs could not get themselves to accept a non Muslim state in their midst.

Plain and simple getting it down to the bare bones, it's about Muslim hatred and intolerance. Nothing else.

 

[toastman]

So the Palestinians could reject the partition and still be a state?

As far as I know yes.

But in order to become a state, don't you need to declare independence ?

Indeed they did in 1948 before anyone else claimed that land.

Another lie. The Palestinians declared independence in 1988, 40 years AFTER Israel did

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the first line

 

[Roudy]

It wasn't until 25 years later during which rich zionists backed by the Rothschild family were able to buy enough influence and politicians, particularly in the US gubmint, that an israeli state was considered.

Even then the UN resolution 181 was nothing more then a study in international bribary, blackmail and intimidation. Led by financial resources of the zionists and the post WWII power of the US countries were bribedm threatened and intimidated into voting FOR the resolution and when that failed, to abstain.

The vote required a 2/3ds majority, 33 voted for, 11 against with 11 ABSTETNIONS/ABSENT. Without the abstentions, the vote would not have carried.

Reports of pressure for the Plan


Proponents of the Plan reportedly put pressure on nations to vote yes to the Partition Plan. A telegram signed by 26 US senators with influence on foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the partition plan.[23] Many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them:

United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me."[24]
India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she voted right".[25]
Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[26] Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government[21][23]
Philippines (Vote: For): In the days before the vote, the Philippines' representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated "We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility". After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed.[23]
Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may have secured Haiti's vote for partition.[27]
France (Vote: For): Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as the United States' ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and it's front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might cause planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit, not to materialise. Previously, in order to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.[20]

IMO israel is an illegitimate state, bought and paid for by wealthy zionists in concert with their primarily bought and paid for corrupt US politicians and democrat administration.

But of of course that's what you say, and what you say ain't with a pile of dung. Actually a pile of dung is probably worth more. I take that back.

 

[Roudy]

As far as I know yes.

But in order to become a state, don't you need to declare independence ?

Indeed they did in 1948 before anyone else claimed that land.

Another lie. The Palestinians declared independence in 1988, 40 years AFTER Israel did

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the first line

They just repeat the same lies over and over, hoping just for once, they won't get caught.

They truly having NOTHING but this garbage. How pathetic.

 

[Alfalfa]

Where does it say that Palestine is not a state without resolution 181?

I didn't say that

Your question is as you always say, based on false premise...

So the Palestinians could reject the partition and still be a state?

The palis and arabs didn't have an objection to a country where jews and arabs would live side by side and buld the country together, they had a problem with it being cut up into two nations with 65% of it going to "israel- a jewish nation" when they only owned 6% of the land and comprised 45% of the population in the territory considered to be given them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

As far as I know yes.

But in order to become a state, don't you need to declare independence ?

Indeed they did in 1948 before anyone else claimed that land.

Another lie. The Palestinians declared independence in 1988, 40 years AFTER Israel did

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the first line

You post Wikipedia, I post actual documents.

A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948

 

[Alfalfa]

Zionists will never accept the truth because if they do it delegitimizes the state of israel. They have their narrative, they have their meme, they have their hasbara and they will never deviate from that...no matter how big a lie it is.

 

[proudveteran06]

Zionists will never accept the truth because if they do it delegitimizes the state of israel. They have their narrative, they have their meme, they have their hasbara and they will never deviate from that...no matter how big a lie it is.

Doesn't really matter now, does it? What does matter is;


The Jewish State Exists

No going back to " borders" that were never recognized in the first place

No " right of return"

Even the Arab League has urged the Palestinians to " negotiate". They refuse to do so? No " palestinian state"



Anti-Semitism of the "Church Fathers"

 

[Alfalfa]

Even the UK abstained which is funny since the area was under their control since the end of WWI. But the UK NEVER considered giving jews their own country and objected to the partition plan as unfair to the muslim palestinians.

But the US twisted their arm and got them to abstain as opposed to voting no.

 

[Alfalfa]

Zionists will never accept the truth because if they do it delegitimizes the state of israel. They have their narrative, they have their meme, they have their hasbara and they will never deviate from that...no matter how big a lie it is.

Doesn't really matter now, does it? What does matter is;


The Jewish State Exists

No going back to " borders" that were never recognized in the first place

No " right of return"

Even the Arab League has urged the Palestinians to " negotiate". They refuse to do so? No " palestinian state"



Anti-Semitism of the "Church Fathers"

So you agree israel was created via international intimidation and extortion and therefore was patently unfair to the palistinian muslims who resided there?