A question about hamas to the pro pal lovers

[P F Tinmore]

in·va·sion [in váy'n]
(plural in·va·sions)
n
1. attempt to conquer: a hostile entry by an armed force into a country's territory, especially with the intention of conquering it
2. arrival in large numbers: the arrival of large numbers of people or things at one time
3. spoiling: a spoiling of something by interfering with it or taking some of it away
4. spread of something harmful: the arrival or spread of something that causes damage or harm

Exactly. They were not an army. They were migrants.

They did not have an army so they mooched Britain's.

No, you made that up, like you do most of the time. Either way, the invasion lie is just Palestinian propaganda

Britain's job in Palestine was to render administrative assistance and advise.

You don't need an army for that.

Uhhh, Britain conquered the Ottoman Empire in WW1. They were placed in foreign territory thay may or may not have been hostile. Not to mention they are thousands of miles away from Britain. So of course they had an army ! What a ridiculous thing to say. They were stationed purely for defensive reasons.

There was no more Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not enemy territory.

 

[toastman]

Exactly. They were not an army. They were migrants.

They did not have an army so they mooched Britain's.

No, you made that up, like you do most of the time. Either way, the invasion lie is just Palestinian propaganda

Britain's job in Palestine was to render administrative assistance and advise.

You don't need an army for that.

Uhhh, Britain conquered the Ottoman Empire in WW1. They were placed in foreign territory thay may or may not have been hostile. Not to mention they are thousands of miles away from Britain. So of course they had an army ! What a ridiculous thing to say. They were stationed purely for defensive reasons.

There was no more Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not enemy territory.

Who did the British conquer the entire region from ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep forgetting.

Exactly. They were not an army. They were migrants.

They did not have an army so they mooched Britain's.

No, you made that up, like you do most of the time. Either way, the invasion lie is just Palestinian propaganda

Britain's job in Palestine was to render administrative assistance and advise.

You don't need an army for that.

Uhhh, Britain conquered the Ottoman Empire in WW1. They were placed in foreign territory thay may or may not have been hostile. Not to mention they are thousands of miles away from Britain. So of course they had an army ! What a ridiculous thing to say. They were stationed purely for defensive reasons.

There was no more Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not enemy territory.

(COMMENT)

The name "Palestine" in 1922 was the short title for the territories subject to the Mandate of Palestine.

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922

The name "Palestine" today means:

• the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep forgetting.

They did not have an army so they mooched Britain's.

No, you made that up, like you do most of the time. Either way, the invasion lie is just Palestinian propaganda

Britain's job in Palestine was to render administrative assistance and advise.

You don't need an army for that.

Uhhh, Britain conquered the Ottoman Empire in WW1. They were placed in foreign territory thay may or may not have been hostile. Not to mention they are thousands of miles away from Britain. So of course they had an army ! What a ridiculous thing to say. They were stationed purely for defensive reasons.

There was no more Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not enemy territory.

(COMMENT)

The name "Palestine" in 1922 was the short title for the territories subject to the Mandate of Palestine.

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922

The name "Palestine" today means:

• the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system,

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course none of that matters.

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

10. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right of self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

So, as stated. The European Jews arrived and settled and the local people resisted their settlement. It is no different than the British settling Jamestown or Manhattan. Why can't you get it through your thick head that the act of coming from Europe and settling in Palestine was the initial act of aggression.

I noticed you ignored my above post where I completely destroyed your lie.

Immigrating to the region is not an act of aggression you idiot. The British even invited the Jews to settle there. The region known as Mandatory Palestine was not the country of the Palestinians.
The INITIAL aggression was the massacring of Jews which happened wayyyyyyyy before any act of aggression against Arabs by Jews.
It's clear that you cannot handle the truth. But that's your problem. BTW, do you remember how you and I started to debate about this ? IT was a month or so ago that you claimed JEws were the first ones to attack Arabs, therefore initiating the violence. Once I refuted that lie by posting links to Arab attacks against Jews that preceded Jewish attacks against Arabs, you changed your argument to :"The immigration was the initial act of aggression!"

What a load of crap Monti.

The British even invited the Jews to settle there

Samuel Landman was Solicitor and Secretary to the Zionist Organisation of the United Kingdom from 1917 to 1922.

Samuel Landman: Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (1936)

".. the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War (WWI) was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret " gentleman's " agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."

Samuel Landman

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep forgetting.

No, you made that up, like you do most of the time. Either way, the invasion lie is just Palestinian propaganda

Britain's job in Palestine was to render administrative assistance and advise.

You don't need an army for that.

Uhhh, Britain conquered the Ottoman Empire in WW1. They were placed in foreign territory thay may or may not have been hostile. Not to mention they are thousands of miles away from Britain. So of course they had an army ! What a ridiculous thing to say. They were stationed purely for defensive reasons.

There was no more Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not enemy territory.

(COMMENT)

The name "Palestine" in 1922 was the short title for the territories subject to the Mandate of Palestine.

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922

The name "Palestine" today means:

• the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system,

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course none of that matters.

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

10. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right of self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

Actually, what he posted does matter because it was a direct response to your post where you make Palestine out to be more than it really was. Your response to that is always the same crap that you just posted now.

 

[toastman]

So, as stated. The European Jews arrived and settled and the local people resisted their settlement. It is no different than the British settling Jamestown or Manhattan. Why can't you get it through your thick head that the act of coming from Europe and settling in Palestine was the initial act of aggression.

I noticed you ignored my above post where I completely destroyed your lie.

Immigrating to the region is not an act of aggression you idiot. The British even invited the Jews to settle there. The region known as Mandatory Palestine was not the country of the Palestinians.
The INITIAL aggression was the massacring of Jews which happened wayyyyyyyy before any act of aggression against Arabs by Jews.
It's clear that you cannot handle the truth. But that's your problem. BTW, do you remember how you and I started to debate about this ? IT was a month or so ago that you claimed JEws were the first ones to attack Arabs, therefore initiating the violence. Once I refuted that lie by posting links to Arab attacks against Jews that preceded Jewish attacks against Arabs, you changed your argument to :"The immigration was the initial act of aggression!"

What a load of crap Monti.

The British even invited the Jews to settle there

Samuel Landman was Solicitor and Secretary to the Zionist Organisation of the United Kingdom from 1917 to 1922.

Samuel Landman: Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (1936)

".. the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so. to be) to induce the American President to come into the War (WWI) was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret " gentleman's " agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."

Samuel Landman

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Either way, what's your point ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep forgetting.

Britain's job in Palestine was to render administrative assistance and advise.

You don't need an army for that.

Uhhh, Britain conquered the Ottoman Empire in WW1. They were placed in foreign territory thay may or may not have been hostile. Not to mention they are thousands of miles away from Britain. So of course they had an army ! What a ridiculous thing to say. They were stationed purely for defensive reasons.

There was no more Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not enemy territory.

(COMMENT)

The name "Palestine" in 1922 was the short title for the territories subject to the Mandate of Palestine.

• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922

The name "Palestine" today means:

• the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system,

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course none of that matters.

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

10. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right of self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

Actually, what he posted does matter because it was a direct response to your post where you make Palestine out to be more than it really was. Your response to that is always the same crap that you just posted now.

By "same crap" do you mean actual UN documents?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever.
No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ​

Don't try to use a good ideal --- just to twist it to your advantage and justify Palestinian Barbarity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever.
No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ​

Don't try to use a good ideal --- just to twist it to your advantage and justify Palestinian Barbarity.

Most Respectfully,
R

"liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;"

 

[Hossfly]

So, as stated. The European Jews arrived and settled and the local people resisted their settlement. It is no different than the British settling Jamestown or Manhattan. Why can't you get it through your thick head that the act of coming from Europe and settling in Palestine was the initial act of aggression.

I noticed you ignored my above post where I completely destroyed your lie.

Immigrating to the region is not an act of aggression you idiot. The British even invited the Jews to settle there. The region known as Mandatory Palestine was not the country of the Palestinians.
The INITIAL aggression was the massacring of Jews which happened wayyyyyyyy before any act of aggression against Arabs by Jews.
It's clear that you cannot handle the truth. But that's your problem. BTW, do you remember how you and I started to debate about this ? IT was a month or so ago that you claimed JEws were the first ones to attack Arabs, therefore initiating the violence. Once I refuted that lie by posting links to Arab attacks against Jews that preceded Jewish attacks against Arabs, you changed your argument to :"The immigration was the initial act of aggression!"

What a load of crap Monti.

The British even invited the Jews to settle there

Samuel Landman was Solicitor and Secretary to the Zionist Organisation of the United Kingdom from 1917 to 1922.

Samuel Landman: Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (1936)

".. the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so. to be) to induce the American President to come into the War (WWI) was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret " gentleman's " agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."

Samuel Landman

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Either way, what's your point ?

Maybe his point is that he wants us to know that he reads the hate sites which is not unusual for many posters on these forums when it comes to Israel. This Landman bit is featured on Rense, David Duke for RadioIslam and the Holocaust Revisionist group (IHR) plus other hate sites.. It is even talked about by some group called White Aryan Resistance. Just goes to show you that the NeoNazis and other Jew haters are playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" these days.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is a very famous "quote" used by the Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever.
No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ​

Don't try to use a good ideal --- just to twist it to your advantage and justify Palestinian Barbarity.

Most Respectfully,
R

"liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;"

(COMMENT)

Just remember, that:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Just remember that S/RES/1373 (2001):

Reaffirming the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

1. Decides that all States shall:

(a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;
(b) Criminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;​

2. Decides also that all States shall:

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information;
(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;
(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;
(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;
(f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;
(g) Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents;
​

The General Assembly Resolution A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 was never intended to grant permission to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian free reign to run loose and spread havoc. It is not a license for people like you to incite armed aggression, terrorism, insurgency and guerilla warfare on a regional scale.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is a very famous "quote" used by the Hostile Arab-Palestinian.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nothing can justify terrorism — ever.
No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ​

Don't try to use a good ideal --- just to twist it to your advantage and justify Palestinian Barbarity.

Most Respectfully,
R

"liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;"

(COMMENT)

Just remember, that:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Just remember that S/RES/1373 (2001):

Reaffirming the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

1. Decides that all States shall:

(a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;
(b) Criminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;​

2. Decides also that all States shall:

(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information;
(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;
(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;
(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;
(f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;
(g) Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents;
​

The General Assembly Resolution A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 was never intended to grant permission to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian free reign to run loose and spread havoc. It is not a license for people like you to incite armed aggression, terrorism, insurgency and guerilla warfare on a regional scale.

Most Respectfully,
R

Terrorist is an Israeli propaganda campaign.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

So, as stated. The European Jews arrived and settled and the local people resisted their settlement. It is no different than the British settling Jamestown or Manhattan. Why can't you get it through your thick head that the act of coming from Europe and settling in Palestine was the initial act of aggression.

I noticed you ignored my above post where I completely destroyed your lie.

Immigrating to the region is not an act of aggression you idiot. The British even invited the Jews to settle there. The region known as Mandatory Palestine was not the country of the Palestinians.
The INITIAL aggression was the massacring of Jews which happened wayyyyyyyy before any act of aggression against Arabs by Jews.
It's clear that you cannot handle the truth. But that's your problem. BTW, do you remember how you and I started to debate about this ? IT was a month or so ago that you claimed JEws were the first ones to attack Arabs, therefore initiating the violence. Once I refuted that lie by posting links to Arab attacks against Jews that preceded Jewish attacks against Arabs, you changed your argument to :"The immigration was the initial act of aggression!"

What a load of crap Monti.

The British even invited the Jews to settle there

Samuel Landman was Solicitor and Secretary to the Zionist Organisation of the United Kingdom from 1917 to 1922.

Samuel Landman: Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (1936)

".. the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so. to be) to induce the American President to come into the War (WWI) was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret " gentleman's " agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."

Samuel Landman

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Either way, what's your point ?

Maybe his point is that he wants us to know that he reads the hate sites which is not unusual for many posters on these forums when it comes to Israel. This Landman bit is featured on Rense, David Duke for RadioIslam and the Holocaust Revisionist group (IHR) plus other hate sites.. It is even talked about by some group called White Aryan Resistance. Just goes to show you that the NeoNazis and other Jew haters are playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" these days.

Yeah, I got it right from the White Aryan Nazi Klan website. wank.com

Have you had to suffer through the criticism of Israel killing US sailors lately? Poor thing.

 

[Hossfly]

So, as stated. The European Jews arrived and settled and the local people resisted their settlement. It is no different than the British settling Jamestown or Manhattan. Why can't you get it through your thick head that the act of coming from Europe and settling in Palestine was the initial act of aggression.

I noticed you ignored my above post where I completely destroyed your lie.

Immigrating to the region is not an act of aggression you idiot. The British even invited the Jews to settle there. The region known as Mandatory Palestine was not the country of the Palestinians.
The INITIAL aggression was the massacring of Jews which happened wayyyyyyyy before any act of aggression against Arabs by Jews.
It's clear that you cannot handle the truth. But that's your problem. BTW, do you remember how you and I started to debate about this ? IT was a month or so ago that you claimed JEws were the first ones to attack Arabs, therefore initiating the violence. Once I refuted that lie by posting links to Arab attacks against Jews that preceded Jewish attacks against Arabs, you changed your argument to :"The immigration was the initial act of aggression!"

What a load of crap Monti.

The British even invited the Jews to settle there

Samuel Landman was Solicitor and Secretary to the Zionist Organisation of the United Kingdom from 1917 to 1922.

Samuel Landman: Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (1936)

".. the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so. to be) to induce the American President to come into the War (WWI) was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret " gentleman's " agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."

Samuel Landman

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Either way, what's your point ?

Maybe his point is that he wants us to know that he reads the hate sites which is not unusual for many posters on these forums when it comes to Israel. This Landman bit is featured on Rense, David Duke for RadioIslam and the Holocaust Revisionist group (IHR) plus other hate sites.. It is even talked about by some group called White Aryan Resistance. Just goes to show you that the NeoNazis and other Jew haters are playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" these days.

Yeah, I got it right from the White Aryan Nazi Klan website. wank.com

Have you had to suffer through the criticism of Israel killing US sailors lately? Poor thing.

Only thing I suffer from, Adolf, is satyriasis and lakanooky.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Your case of lakanooky is definitely not idiopathic, but certainly chronic, Mr Pollard.

 

[theliq]

in·va·sion [in váy'n]
(plural in·va·sions)
n
1. attempt to conquer: a hostile entry by an armed force into a country's territory, especially with the intention of conquering it
2. arrival in large numbers: the arrival of large numbers of people or things at one time
3. spoiling: a spoiling of something by interfering with it or taking some of it away
4. spread of something harmful: the arrival or spread of something that causes damage or harm

Exactly. They were not an army. They were migrants.

They did not have an army so they mooched Britain's.

No, you made that up, like you do most of the time. Either way, the invasion lie is just Palestinian propaganda

Britain's job in Palestine was to render administrative assistance and advise.

You don't need an army for that.

Uhhh, Britain conquered the Ottoman Empire in WW1. They were placed in foreign territory thay may or may not have been hostile. Not to mention they are thousands of miles away from Britain. So of course they had an army ! What a ridiculous thing to say. They were stationed purely for defensive reasons.

Hi Toastie,After the fall of the Ottomans circa 1916 approx.......The British then settled into "The Mandate of Palestine"They did have an Army albeit a small one,to oversee the Mandate..........it was in approx., 1923 that an influx of European Jews stared to enter this area illegally,which the Palestinians and British allowed them to set up farms ect,.as they seemed no threat to the status-quo.

No threat at this stage but by the late 20's early 30's this became a Jewish torrent of Illegals.....The British became concerned and the Palestinians Alarmed and this proved the turning point of Jewish/Palestinian relationship.The Palestinians did then realize it was becoming an invasion and tried to resist this onslaught......but with Britain dithering and Government in London the Jewish politicians rampted up their desire for a Jewish homeland(although the British promised the land for the Palestinians this proved a hollow gesture).

The Top Government Administrators in Palestine were all Jews and as time progressed,after the British fought with the Jewish illegals originally,the Palestinians roze up against the British......and the Jews...after WW2....The UN became involved and by 1948 Jews got Statehood,the Palestinians of course rightly refused to accept the partition ............prior to this, the various Jewish Murderous Terrorist Groups set out to eliminate as many Palestinians as they could and did of course,razing Palestinian villages and towns and murdering tens of thousands and exiling hundreds of thousands......both the British and more importantly the Palestinians had been completely out manovered sic by a better equipped,ruthless and determined foe.

Today we have,the Israelis gaining more land and building settlements for immigrants,settlers to live.....I really don't think Israel have or had any intention to a 2 State solution.........maybe with Mr Rabin and Simon Peres....but today we see the Rabid Right Wing in control,and there mantra of driving out the Palestinians is for all to see........It makes a Mockery of the Jews claim that the Palestinians want to eliminate all Jews......the proof is always in the pudding and the comparison of Palestinian Deaths to Jewish Deaths since 1948 is appox 14 to 1,the Palestinian being the higher figure,moreover many more Palestinian children have been slaughtered than the total amount of Jews slaughtered.......what a shocking inditement. sic

But the Palestinians will survive,even if the rest of the world has to help them.steve

 

[theliq]

Exactly. They were not an army. They were migrants.

They did not have an army so they mooched Britain's.

No, you made that up, like you do most of the time. Either way, the invasion lie is just Palestinian propaganda

Britain's job in Palestine was to render administrative assistance and advise.

You don't need an army for that.

Uhhh, Britain conquered the Ottoman Empire in WW1. They were placed in foreign territory thay may or may not have been hostile. Not to mention they are thousands of miles away from Britain. So of course they had an army ! What a ridiculous thing to say. They were stationed purely for defensive reasons.

Hi Toastie,After the fall of the Ottomans circa 1918 approx.......The British then settled into "The Mandate of Palestine"They did have an Army albeit a small one,to oversee the Mandate..........it was in approx., 1923 that an influx of European Jews stared to enter this area illegally,which the Palestinians and British allowed them to set up farms ect,.as they seemed no threat to the status-quo.

No threat at this stage but by the late 20's early 30's this became a Jewish torrent of Illegals.....The British became concerned and the Palestinians Alarmed and this proved the turning point of Jewish/Palestinian relationship.The Palestinians did then realize it was becoming an invasion and tried to resist this onslaught......but with Britain dithering and Government in London the Jewish politicians rampted up their desire for a Jewish homeland(although the British promised the land for the Palestinians this proved a hollow gesture).

The Top Government Administrators in Palestine were all Jews and as time progressed,after the British fought with the Jewish illegals originally,the Palestinians roze up against the British......and the Jews...after WW2....The UN became involved and by 1948 Jews got Statehood,the Palestinians of course rightly refused to accept the partition ............prior to this, the various Jewish Murderous Terrorist Groups set out to eliminate as many Palestinians as they could and did of course,razing Palestinian villages and towns and murdering tens of thousands and exiling hundreds of thousands......both the British and more importantly the Palestinians had been completely out manovered sic by a better equipped,ruthless and determined foe.

Today we have,the Israelis gaining more land and building settlements for immigrants,settlers to live.....I really don't think Israel have or had any intention to a 2 State solution.........maybe with Mr Rabin and Simon Peres....but today we see the Rabid Right Wing in control,and there mantra of driving out the Palestinians is for all to see........It makes a Mockery of the Jews claim that the Palestinians want to eliminate all Jews......the proof is always in the pudding and the comparison of Palestinian Deaths to Jewish Deaths since 1948 is appox 14 to 1,the Palestinian being the higher figure,moreover many more Palestinian children have been slaughtered than the total amount of Jews slaughtered.......what a shocking inditement. sic

But the Palestinians will survive,even if the rest of the world have to help them.steve

As a footnote Toastie,Jews throughout the Arab world were exciled after the six-day War in 1967....there are still some business Jews still working with Arabs,not many admittedly also someone stated that Palestinians first started killing local Jews...this is just not true because both Jews and Palestinians got on well together prior to WW2,I know because I have met them moreover they are still friends today and have been for generations

 

[Hossfly]

So, as stated. The European Jews arrived and settled and the local people resisted their settlement. It is no different than the British settling Jamestown or Manhattan. Why can't you get it through your thick head that the act of coming from Europe and settling in Palestine was the initial act of aggression.

I noticed you ignored my above post where I completely destroyed your lie.

Immigrating to the region is not an act of aggression you idiot. The British even invited the Jews to settle there. The region known as Mandatory Palestine was not the country of the Palestinians.
The INITIAL aggression was the massacring of Jews which happened wayyyyyyyy before any act of aggression against Arabs by Jews.
It's clear that you cannot handle the truth. But that's your problem. BTW, do you remember how you and I started to debate about this ? IT was a month or so ago that you claimed JEws were the first ones to attack Arabs, therefore initiating the violence. Once I refuted that lie by posting links to Arab attacks against Jews that preceded Jewish attacks against Arabs, you changed your argument to :"The immigration was the initial act of aggression!"

What a load of crap Monti.

The British even invited the Jews to settle there

Samuel Landman was Solicitor and Secretary to the Zionist Organisation of the United Kingdom from 1917 to 1922.

Samuel Landman: Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (1936)

".. the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so. to be) to induce the American President to come into the War (WWI) was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret " gentleman's " agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill will would represent or rather misrepresent."

Samuel Landman

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Either way, what's your point ?

Maybe his point is that he wants us to know that he reads the hate sites which is not unusual for many posters on these forums when it comes to Israel. This Landman bit is featured on Rense, David Duke for RadioIslam and the Holocaust Revisionist group (IHR) plus other hate sites.. It is even talked about by some group called White Aryan Resistance. Just goes to show you that the NeoNazis and other Jew haters are playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" these days.

Yeah, I got it right from the White Aryan Nazi Klan website. wank.com

Have you had to suffer through the criticism of Israel killing US sailors lately? Poor thing.

Yessiree, we have another hate site reader here. The old Liberty incident is a favorite on the hate sites and has been dug up and posted hundreds of times over the years. Lots has happened since the Liberty incident, but the Jew haters on here are obsessed with Israel and not with the tens of thousands of innocent people who have been killed by Arabs in the Middle East. I guess it doesn't bother you that it is the Arabs murdering other Arabs, and you just can't be interested because the Jews are not involved. If the hate sites were blaming the Jews for this, you would be happy to drag it up from some hate sites.

 

[SAYIT]

Given the well known fact that hamas is a scumbag org that severely oppresses the people of gaza, how come the pro pal defenders here never seem to complain about them? How come they never seem to have any comments taking hamas to task for not governing gaza in a professional, efficient manner?

Simple. The enemy of the anti-Israel cabal is their friend. Thus Hamas gets a pass from the haters.