All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[rylah]

Even today, the Palestinians have the right to negotiate their territory and borders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Palestine's territory and borders are the same as they were in 1924.

What You call their "right to negotiate territory" solely comes from the sovereign decision of the Jewish Nation of Israel.

What will they negotiate and what legal legitimacy will they have, when Israel's next young generation scrap their recognition of the Arab squatters, and reverse to full sovereignty over the entire land?
Mecca?

They're on borrowed time.

They're on borrowed time.

Interesting opinion.

As opposed to someone who lives thousands of miles away,
and has no sovereign or legal power over the issue?

Well, my opinion actually counts.

You can of course try apply to become a subject of the PA, and vote to make Your opinion count...oh wait... first there need to be elections to begin with.

Now tell me what does that mean regarding Your countless hours spent on the issue?

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I cannot show you something that is not there. But you can show me the "entitlement" you claim the Arab Palestinians have.

The Arab Palestinians were not entitled to the entirety of the Territory administered under the Mandate for Palestine.

Who says? Link?

(COMMENT)

I claim there is NO Entitlement. You claim there is an Entitlement. Prove me wrong by showing me the Entitlement that gives the Arab Palestinian the entirety of the territory formerly subject to the Mandate.


........View attachment 283295
Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandate was irrelevant to the status of Palestine. The Mandate had power, but it did not have sovereignty, territory, or borders. If the territory of Palestine was under the sovereignty of the Mandate, and Britain wanted to create a homeland for the Jews, they could have just given the territory to the Zionists and called it a day. However, it was not Britain's to give away.

The same for the UN. The UN proposed to divide Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan, as they had the sovereign right to do, and there was no more Resolution 181. Palestine was not the UN's to partition.

Even today, the Palestinians have the right to negotiate their territory and borders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Palestine's territory and borders are the same as they were in 1924.

What “sovereign right” did the Arabs-Moslems have?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I cannot show you something that is not there. But you can show me the "entitlement" you claim the Arab Palestinians have.

The Arab Palestinians were not entitled to the entirety of the Territory administered under the Mandate for Palestine.

Who says? Link?

(COMMENT)

I claim there is NO Entitlement. You claim there is an Entitlement. Prove me wrong by showing me the Entitlement that gives the Arab Palestinian the entirety of the territory formerly subject to the Mandate.


........View attachment 283295
Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandate was irrelevant to the status of Palestine. The Mandate had power, but it did not have sovereignty, territory, or borders. If the territory of Palestine was under the sovereignty of the Mandate, and Britain wanted to create a homeland for the Jews, they could have just given the territory to the Zionists and called it a day. However, it was not Britain's to give away.

The same for the UN. The UN proposed to divide Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan, as they had the sovereign right to do, and there was no more Resolution 181. Palestine was not the UN's to partition.

Even today, the Palestinians have the right to negotiate their territory and borders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Palestine's territory and borders are the same as they were in 1924.

What “sovereign right” did the Arabs-Moslems have?

The usual. The UN has them mentioned in several resolutions.

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I cannot show you something that is not there. But you can show me the "entitlement" you claim the Arab Palestinians have.

The Arab Palestinians were not entitled to the entirety of the Territory administered under the Mandate for Palestine.

Who says? Link?

(COMMENT)

I claim there is NO Entitlement. You claim there is an Entitlement. Prove me wrong by showing me the Entitlement that gives the Arab Palestinian the entirety of the territory formerly subject to the Mandate.


........View attachment 283295
Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandate was irrelevant to the status of Palestine. The Mandate had power, but it did not have sovereignty, territory, or borders. If the territory of Palestine was under the sovereignty of the Mandate, and Britain wanted to create a homeland for the Jews, they could have just given the territory to the Zionists and called it a day. However, it was not Britain's to give away.

The same for the UN. The UN proposed to divide Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan, as they had the sovereign right to do, and there was no more Resolution 181. Palestine was not the UN's to partition.

Even today, the Palestinians have the right to negotiate their territory and borders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Palestine's territory and borders are the same as they were in 1924.

What “sovereign right” did the Arabs-Moslems have?

The usual. The UN has them mentioned in several resolutions.

None that you can identify then. Is that about right?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

All the inhabitants were entitled to was citizenship to whatever came next. However, the Arab Palestinians → "in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory (after the Administration under the Mandate) was partitioned into a Jewish State and an Arab State. Which was rejected by the Arab Palestinians. Today, the State of Israel exists (with its capital in Jerusalem) and the remnants of the Arab State.

​

The Mandate was irrelevant to the status of Palestine. The Mandate had power, but it did not have sovereignty, territory, or borders. If the territory of Palestine was under the sovereignty of the Mandate, and Britain wanted to create a homeland for the Jews, they could have just given the territory to the Zionists and called it a day. However, it was not Britain's to give away.

The same for the UN. The UN proposed to divide Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan, as they had the sovereign right to do, and there was no more Resolution 181. Palestine was not the UN's to partition.

Even today, the Palestinians have the right to negotiate their territory and borders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Palestine's territory and borders are the same as they were in 1924.

(COMMENT)

The Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title" to the territory in favor of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian (Article 16 → 1924 Treaty of Lausanne).

READ CAREFULLY:

✪ "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
​

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "party to the Treaty;" let alone a "concerned party."

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

FYI from the International Encyclopedia of Political Science:

​

v/r
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

All the inhabitants were entitled to was citizenship to whatever came next. However, the Arab Palestinians → "in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory (after the Administration under the Mandate) was partitioned into a Jewish State and an Arab State. Which was rejected by the Arab Palestinians. Today, the State of Israel exists (with its capital in Jerusalem) and the remnants of the Arab State.

​

The Mandate was irrelevant to the status of Palestine. The Mandate had power, but it did not have sovereignty, territory, or borders. If the territory of Palestine was under the sovereignty of the Mandate, and Britain wanted to create a homeland for the Jews, they could have just given the territory to the Zionists and called it a day. However, it was not Britain's to give away.

The same for the UN. The UN proposed to divide Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan, as they had the sovereign right to do, and there was no more Resolution 181. Palestine was not the UN's to partition.

Even today, the Palestinians have the right to negotiate their territory and borders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Palestine's territory and borders are the same as they were in 1924.

(COMMENT)

The Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title" to the territory in favor of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian (Article 16 → 1924 Treaty of Lausanne).

READ CAREFULLY:

✪ "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
​

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "party to the Treaty;" let alone a "concerned party."

........View attachment 283309
Most Respectfully,
R

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

9. It was already apparent, when the Mandate entered into force, that the interests of the Arab majority and those of the Jewish minority would be difficult to reconcile. The first formal enquiry into the political attitudes and aspirations of the local population was undertaken in 1919 by the American King-Crane Commission, sent by President Wilson to study conditions in the Turkish Empire with reference to possible mandates. Reporting on the situation in Palestine they said:
“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by forces of arms.”​

Indeed, the Zionist colonial project was imposed on Palestine by military force. It was a military attack on Palestinian civilians from day one.

The Zionist/British attacks were the initial aggression. The Palestinian position from then to now is defensive.

The Israeli position of "defending itself" is just a lie.

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

All the inhabitants were entitled to was citizenship to whatever came next. However, the Arab Palestinians → "in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory (after the Administration under the Mandate) was partitioned into a Jewish State and an Arab State. Which was rejected by the Arab Palestinians. Today, the State of Israel exists (with its capital in Jerusalem) and the remnants of the Arab State.

​

The Mandate was irrelevant to the status of Palestine. The Mandate had power, but it did not have sovereignty, territory, or borders. If the territory of Palestine was under the sovereignty of the Mandate, and Britain wanted to create a homeland for the Jews, they could have just given the territory to the Zionists and called it a day. However, it was not Britain's to give away.

The same for the UN. The UN proposed to divide Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan, as they had the sovereign right to do, and there was no more Resolution 181. Palestine was not the UN's to partition.

Even today, the Palestinians have the right to negotiate their territory and borders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Palestine's territory and borders are the same as they were in 1924.

(COMMENT)

The Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title" to the territory in favor of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian (Article 16 → 1924 Treaty of Lausanne).

READ CAREFULLY:

✪ "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
​

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "party to the Treaty;" let alone a "concerned party."

........View attachment 283309
Most Respectfully,
R

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

9. It was already apparent, when the Mandate entered into force, that the interests of the Arab majority and those of the Jewish minority would be difficult to reconcile. The first formal enquiry into the political attitudes and aspirations of the local population was undertaken in 1919 by the American King-Crane Commission, sent by President Wilson to study conditions in the Turkish Empire with reference to possible mandates. Reporting on the situation in Palestine they said:
“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by forces of arms.”​

Indeed, the Zionist colonial project was imposed on Palestine by military force. It was a military attack on Palestinian civilians from day one.

The Zionist/British attacks were the initial aggression. The Palestinian position from then to now is defensive.

The Israeli position of "defending itself" is just a lie.

Indeed:

10. In April, 1920, five Jews were killed and over two hundred injured in the first outbreak of anti-Zionist Arab violence. A military committee of enquiry (the civil administration was not then established) found that the causes of the outbreak were: (a) the disappointment of the Arabs at the non-fulfilment of the promises of independence which they claimed had been given to them during the war of 1914-18; (b) the belief of the Arabs that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination, and their fear that the establishment of the Jewish national home would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews; and (c) the aggravation of these sentiments, on the one hand by propaganda from outside Palestine associated with the proclamation in Damascus of the Emir Feisal as King of a re-united Syrian and with the growth of pan-Arab and pan-Moslem ideas, and on the other hand by the activities of a Zionist Commission which was then in Palestine, supported by the resources and influence of Jews throughout the world.

Indeed, it was the Arabs-Moslems who were the aggressors.

Indeed, yes. The Jews needed to defend themselves.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This was an impression recorded from a time more than a quarter of a century before the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended a partition.

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

9. It was already apparent, when the Mandate entered into force, that the interests of the Arab majority and those of the Jewish minority would be difficult to reconcile. The first formal enquiry into the political attitudes and aspirations of the local population was undertaken in 1919 by the American King-Crane Commission, sent by President Wilson to study conditions in the Turkish Empire with reference to possible mandates. Reporting on the situation in Palestine they said:
“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by forces of arms.”​

Indeed, the Zionist colonial project was imposed on Palestine by military force. It was a military attack on Palestinian civilians from day one.

The Zionist/British attacks were the initial aggression. The Palestinian position from then to now is defensive.

The Israeli position of "defending itself" is just a lie.

(COMMENT)

You will note that the American King-Crane Commission (1919 Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey) who's historical commentary was recorded, and is now trying to be interpreted, by a pro-Arab Palestinian Advocate, some a century later, does not present an opposing view for balance. Nor does this passage refer to any colonial business or aspect that prevents the Arab Palestinians from being cooperative. Nor does it take into account that after the King-Crane Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates, the Principle Allied Powers convened in San Remo in April of 1920, for the express purpose of discussing these issues. And you will also note that the King-Crane Commission was supposed to be an Inter-Allied Commission by multiple Allied Powers, it was an unappreciated commission that was stood-up by every other Allied Power. On 26 April 1920, the conference made a determination and issued the Class "A" Mandates for the administration of Palestine and the other areas Syria and Mesopotamia (Iraq). Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognized as states, Palestine was NOT. The San Remo discussions determined that the Jewish National Home would be located in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

When was this "Day One" when → "It was a military attack on Palestinian civilians?" You keep mentioning the "attack." There was a War in progress and the Arab Palestinian Territory was Enemy Territory of the Ottoman Empire. And when that territory was captured, the area gradually came under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).

Israel, formed under the guiding hand of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC), began defending itself from elements of the Arab League beginning 15 May 1948. And Israel has been defending itself from hostile Arab Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Arab Fighters since that day. Many academics consider the period from 1946 to 1948 as a prelude to the IAC to come.

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This was an impression recorded from a time more than a quarter of a century before the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended a partition.

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

9. It was already apparent, when the Mandate entered into force, that the interests of the Arab majority and those of the Jewish minority would be difficult to reconcile. The first formal enquiry into the political attitudes and aspirations of the local population was undertaken in 1919 by the American King-Crane Commission, sent by President Wilson to study conditions in the Turkish Empire with reference to possible mandates. Reporting on the situation in Palestine they said:
“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by forces of arms.”​

Indeed, the Zionist colonial project was imposed on Palestine by military force. It was a military attack on Palestinian civilians from day one.

The Zionist/British attacks were the initial aggression. The Palestinian position from then to now is defensive.

The Israeli position of "defending itself" is just a lie.

(COMMENT)

You will note that the American King-Crane Commission (1919 Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey) who's historical commentary was recorded, and is now trying to be interpreted, by a pro-Arab Palestinian Advocate, some a century later, does not present an opposing view for balance. Nor does this passage refer to any colonial business or aspect that prevents the Arab Palestinians from being cooperative. Nor does it take into account that after the King-Crane Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates, the Principle Allied Powers convened in San Remo in April of 1920, for the express purpose of discussing these issues. And you will also note that the King-Crane Commission was supposed to be an Inter-Allied Commission by multiple Allied Powers, it was an unappreciated commission that was stood-up by every other Allied Power. On 26 April 1920, the conference made a determination and issued the Class "A" Mandates for the administration of Palestine and the other areas Syria and Mesopotamia (Iraq). Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognized as states, Palestine was NOT. The San Remo discussions determined that the Jewish National Home would be located in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

When was this "Day One" when → "It was a military attack on Palestinian civilians?" You keep mentioning the "attack." There was a War in progress and the Arab Palestinian Territory was Enemy Territory of the Ottoman Empire. And when that territory was captured, the area gradually came under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).

Israel, formed under the guiding hand of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC), began defending itself from elements of the Arab League beginning 15 May 1948. And Israel has been defending itself from hostile Arab Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Arab Fighters since that day. Many academics consider the period from 1946 to 1948 as a prelude to the IAC to come.

........View attachment 283326
Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, so much smoke.

People do not get colonized voluntarily. It requires military force.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This was an impression recorded from a time more than a quarter of a century before the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended a partition.

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

9. It was already apparent, when the Mandate entered into force, that the interests of the Arab majority and those of the Jewish minority would be difficult to reconcile. The first formal enquiry into the political attitudes and aspirations of the local population was undertaken in 1919 by the American King-Crane Commission, sent by President Wilson to study conditions in the Turkish Empire with reference to possible mandates. Reporting on the situation in Palestine they said:
“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by forces of arms.”​

Indeed, the Zionist colonial project was imposed on Palestine by military force. It was a military attack on Palestinian civilians from day one.

The Zionist/British attacks were the initial aggression. The Palestinian position from then to now is defensive.

The Israeli position of "defending itself" is just a lie.

(COMMENT)

You will note that the American King-Crane Commission (1919 Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey) who's historical commentary was recorded, and is now trying to be interpreted, by a pro-Arab Palestinian Advocate, some a century later, does not present an opposing view for balance. Nor does this passage refer to any colonial business or aspect that prevents the Arab Palestinians from being cooperative. Nor does it take into account that after the King-Crane Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates, the Principle Allied Powers convened in San Remo in April of 1920, for the express purpose of discussing these issues. And you will also note that the King-Crane Commission was supposed to be an Inter-Allied Commission by multiple Allied Powers, it was an unappreciated commission that was stood-up by every other Allied Power. On 26 April 1920, the conference made a determination and issued the Class "A" Mandates for the administration of Palestine and the other areas Syria and Mesopotamia (Iraq). Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognized as states, Palestine was NOT. The San Remo discussions determined that the Jewish National Home would be located in the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.

When was this "Day One" when → "It was a military attack on Palestinian civilians?" You keep mentioning the "attack." There was a War in progress and the Arab Palestinian Territory was Enemy Territory of the Ottoman Empire. And when that territory was captured, the area gradually came under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).

Israel, formed under the guiding hand of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC), began defending itself from elements of the Arab League beginning 15 May 1948. And Israel has been defending itself from hostile Arab Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Arab Fighters since that day. Many academics consider the period from 1946 to 1948 as a prelude to the IAC to come.

........View attachment 283326
Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, so much smoke.

People do not get colonized voluntarily. It requires military force.

People do not get colonized voluntarily. It requires military force.

But enough about the spread of Islam.

 

[Shusha]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

All the inhabitants were entitled to was citizenship to whatever came next. However, the Arab Palestinians → "in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The territory (after the Administration under the Mandate) was partitioned into a Jewish State and an Arab State. Which was rejected by the Arab Palestinians. Today, the State of Israel exists (with its capital in Jerusalem) and the remnants of the Arab State.

​

The Mandate was irrelevant to the status of Palestine. The Mandate had power, but it did not have sovereignty, territory, or borders. If the territory of Palestine was under the sovereignty of the Mandate, and Britain wanted to create a homeland for the Jews, they could have just given the territory to the Zionists and called it a day. However, it was not Britain's to give away.

The same for the UN. The UN proposed to divide Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan, as they had the sovereign right to do, and there was no more Resolution 181. Palestine was not the UN's to partition.

Even today, the Palestinians have the right to negotiate their territory and borders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. Palestine's territory and borders are the same as they were in 1924.

(COMMENT)

The Turkish Republic "renounces all rights and title" to the territory in favor of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian (Article 16 → 1924 Treaty of Lausanne).

READ CAREFULLY:

✪ "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
​

The Arab Palestinians were NOT a "party to the Treaty;" let alone a "concerned party."

........View attachment 283309
Most Respectfully,
R

I can find NO authority for the Arab Palestinians in 1924. The Arab Palestinian "rejected" all attempts to bring into a cooperation with the government.

9. It was already apparent, when the Mandate entered into force, that the interests of the Arab majority and those of the Jewish minority would be difficult to reconcile. The first formal enquiry into the political attitudes and aspirations of the local population was undertaken in 1919 by the American King-Crane Commission, sent by President Wilson to study conditions in the Turkish Empire with reference to possible mandates. Reporting on the situation in Palestine they said:
“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by forces of arms.”​

Indeed, the Zionist colonial project was imposed on Palestine by military force. It was a military attack on Palestinian civilians from day one.

The Zionist/British attacks were the initial aggression. The Palestinian position from then to now is defensive.

The Israeli position of "defending itself" is just a lie.

Holy moving the goal posts, Batman! The claim on the table is that Arab Palestinians are entitled to the whole of the remaining territory. And, therefore, the Jewish Palestinians are not entitled to any territory.

Defend.

 

[Shusha]

When was this "Day One" ...

According to Tinmore, "Day One" was the return of the Jewish people to their homeland. The trigger is the presence of the Jewish people in Israel. (Thus all this talk about "colonizers").

Of course, he will argue, and has argued, that Jews and Arabs got along "just fine" all over the Middle East and North Africa. Its not really about the presence of Jewish people, then is it?

What is Tinmore's real "Day One"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

When was this "Day One" ...

According to Tinmore, "Day One" was the return of the Jewish people to their homeland. The trigger is the presence of the Jewish people in Israel. (Thus all this talk about "colonizers").

Of course, he will argue, and has argued, that Jews and Arabs got along "just fine" all over the Middle East and North Africa. Its not really about the presence of Jewish people, then is it?

What is Tinmore's real "Day One"?

Of course I have a video for that.

Leila Farsakh: Mandatory Palestine prior to 1939 - Opposition to British policy and Zionist project

 

[rylah]

When was this "Day One" ...

According to Tinmore, "Day One" was the return of the Jewish people to their homeland. The trigger is the presence of the Jewish people in Israel. (Thus all this talk about "colonizers").

Of course, he will argue, and has argued, that Jews and Arabs got along "just fine" all over the Middle East and North Africa. Its not really about the presence of Jewish people, then is it?

What is Tinmore's real "Day One"?

Of course I have a video for that.

Leila Farsakh: Mandatory Palestine prior to 1939 - Opposition to British policy and Zionist project

This is a typical pan-Arab revision of history, that starts from a certain date, before which they never dare to even remotely discuss. This is done for 2 purposes:

1. Sell the peaceful coexistence lie, and hide the responsibility of the Arab Pogroms in motivating the native Jewish population to organize politically and militarily with the help of the diaspora as a response.
2. Hide the ruling Arab elite's responsibility in causing chaos by both trying to eat the cake and leave it whole, through an attempt to gain wealth by sale of lands for astronomical prices, while at the same time inciting the population of Arab tenants to revolt and take it back by force. And as a byproduct keep the royal Arab families in power as feudal elites, at times of power restructuring in that specific small region and the Ottoman Caliphate as whole - effectively deflecting all rage and blame at the Jewish population.

Then follows a projection of later British statements that were a result of later Arab pressure, on what was their initial position, regarding their commitment in helping the native Jewish community and that in the diaspora to organize politically for self-determination and eventual independence - change of cause and effect.

Essentially what we have is abuse by typically placing all the blame on the victim, to which the Arab dominating power structure never imagined to ever lose, because of their habit in seeing the native Jewish population as a neglectable 3rd class, convenient passive scapegoats, on whom all pressure of the Arabs could be released, as a result of their inability to actually govern (seen till today), powerlessness in face of constant Bedouin plundering, and total corruption of the Arab feudal elites that were installed by the Ottoman Caliphate.

As I've said before, that region was the most messy, mistreated and neglected of the entire Caliphate.
Blaming that on Jews is merely a symptom of a much deeper problem, which prevented them from effectively organizing politically and ordering their lives, from the times of the Muslim expansion into the region - till this day around much of the Arab world (with rare exceptions).

Q. What else did they ever do beside blaming the victim?

 

[Shusha]

When was this "Day One" ...

According to Tinmore, "Day One" was the return of the Jewish people to their homeland. The trigger is the presence of the Jewish people in Israel. (Thus all this talk about "colonizers").

Of course, he will argue, and has argued, that Jews and Arabs got along "just fine" all over the Middle East and North Africa. Its not really about the presence of Jewish people, then is it?

What is Tinmore's real "Day One"?

Of course I have a video for that.

Leila Farsakh: Mandatory Palestine prior to 1939 - Opposition to British policy and Zionist project

Of course you have a video.

She names the first period of Arab resistance as being a direct result of the formation of the World Zionist Declaration with its stated goal of "...establishing for the Jewish people a publicly recognized and legally assured home in Palestine."

In other words, Arabs resist the idea that the Jewish people have a publicly recognized and legally assured home in Palestine (their homeland).

She states: "The encounter with the Zionist project was not so much an encounter with the Jews, it was an encounter with these foreign settlers. They were coming to Palestine. ... Their concern was not the fact that these people came, but that they were European and they did not mingle with the local population. They wanted to be on their own."

In other words, Arabs resist the idea that the Jewish people should "be on their own" (self-determination, self-government, sovereignty).

These twin ideas -- that the Jewish people must not have a legally assured home in their homeland and that the Jewish people must be under the sovereignty of others -- is absolutely unacceptable in any modern context.




Also, question: If Leila Farsakh wanted to move "home" to Palestine, how would she prove she is not "too American"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Strip Searches and Worse: Heba al-Labadi Among Palestinians Tortured in Israeli Prisons

Female prisoners say the mistreatment they experienced in Israeli prisons seemed often to involve sexual degradation and abuse.

On August 20, Heba Ahmed al-Labadi fell into the dark hole of the Israeli legal system, joining 413 Palestinian prisoners who are currently held in so-called administrative detention.

Administrative detention is Israel’s go-to legal proceeding when it simply wants to mute the voices of Palestinian political activists, but lacks any concrete evidence that can be presented in an open, military court.

Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Bis, a Palestinian woman from the Jablaiya refugee camp in Gaza, told me about the years she was held in Israeli jails. “I was tortured for years inside the Ramleh prison’s infamous ‘cell nine’, a torture chamber they designated for people like me,” she said.

I was hanged from the ceiling and beaten. They put a black bag on my head as they beat and interrogated me for many hours and days. They released dogs and mice in my cell. I couldn’t sleep for days at a time. They stripped me naked and left me like that for days on end. They didn’t allow me to meet with a lawyer or even receive visits from the Red Cross.”

 

[Hollie]

Strip Searches and Worse: Heba al-Labadi Among Palestinians Tortured in Israeli Prisons

Female prisoners say the mistreatment they experienced in Israeli prisons seemed often to involve sexual degradation and abuse.

On August 20, Heba Ahmed al-Labadi fell into the dark hole of the Israeli legal system, joining 413 Palestinian prisoners who are currently held in so-called administrative detention.

Administrative detention is Israel’s go-to legal proceeding when it simply wants to mute the voices of Palestinian political activists, but lacks any concrete evidence that can be presented in an open, military court.

Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Bis, a Palestinian woman from the Jablaiya refugee camp in Gaza, told me about the years she was held in Israeli jails. “I was tortured for years inside the Ramleh prison’s infamous ‘cell nine’, a torture chamber they designated for people like me,” she said.

I was hanged from the ceiling and beaten. They put a black bag on my head as they beat and interrogated me for many hours and days. They released dogs and mice in my cell. I couldn’t sleep for days at a time. They stripped me naked and left me like that for days on end. They didn’t allow me to meet with a lawyer or even receive visits from the Red Cross.”

Of course, "Mint Press". An internet version of a supermarket tabloid.

Any corroboration of that story?

 

[Hollie]

When was this "Day One" ...

According to Tinmore, "Day One" was the return of the Jewish people to their homeland. The trigger is the presence of the Jewish people in Israel. (Thus all this talk about "colonizers").

Of course, he will argue, and has argued, that Jews and Arabs got along "just fine" all over the Middle East and North Africa. Its not really about the presence of Jewish people, then is it?

What is Tinmore's real "Day One"?

Of course I have a video for that.

Leila Farsakh: Mandatory Palestine prior to 1939 - Opposition to British policy and Zionist project

Can I ask that you don't make this thread just another dumping ground for your YouTube videos?

Thanks in advance.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel demolishes structures in Masafer Yatta

Israeli forces on Thursday demolished a number of sheds and tents and seized solar panels in the village of Khirbet a-Daqiqah, in Masafer Yatta in the south of the occupied West Bank, said a local activist.

Rateb al-Jabour, coordinator of the popular committee against the separation wall and settlements, said that an Israeli occupation forces bulldozer demolished several tin sheds in Shaab al-Harathin area and seized solar panels that were used to light homes.

Residents fear there may be other demolitions in the area, said Jabour.

Israel demolishes structures in Masafer Yatta