Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

[P F Tinmore]

They can't just because they don't have a country to rule!
Maybe Israelis and Palestinians should split in two Palestine then they could have two indipendent countries (a jewish one for Israelis and a muslim one for Palestinians)

That was done in 1923 and the arab muslims wanted it all, so that is why we have the problems we do in the M.E.

The Palestinians wanted all of Palestine?

How dare they.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel did not acquire land. At no time has Israel acquired any territory. Step by step.

The Ottoman Empire was dissolved.

The Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) ceded all claims to territory, of which, "Palestine" was part.

The territory was ceded to the control of the Allied Powers for the purpose of self-determination and self-government of various groups as they became capable of said government.

One of those groups was the Jewish People and the territory ceded for their self-determination and self-government was what was left of "Palestine" after Jordan's people were given its own self-determination.

The Jewish People, having completed the necessary steps, having established a government, DECLARED its independence (from the Mandate of the Allied Powers) just as Jordan and Syria and Iraq declared their independence. It is the declaration of independence and the recognition of independence which brings a State into being. Done and done. Israel is a State on all of the territory.

Jordan and Egypt sign peace treaties with Israel delineating the borders between their respective nations and Israel.

Much later, 1988, Palestine declared its own independence (from Israel). Israel essentially accepted this in principle. A negotiated peace treaty between Israel and the government of Palestine permitted Palestine temporary government over Gaza and Area A and temporary limited government over Area B. Israel maintains complete control over Area C (they maintain control -- they already had it both legally and effectively). ALL final dispositions were left to negotiation and treaty.

So, P F Tinmore , where do you think I have this wrong and why?

The territory was ceded to the control of the Allied Powers for the purpose of self-determination and self-government of various groups as they became capable of said government.​

No they didn't. Read Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Where does it say what you claim in article 30 then


SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


This means that the arab muslims that arrived after JULY 24, 1923 are not covered by this treaty. You cant make a treaty apply to an aspect it was never meant to cover, and as we all know the arab muslim illegally migrated to palestine to swell their numbers

Indeed, the Muslims/Christians were about 93% of the population at the turn of the century. With their mass immigration their numbers zoomed up to 65% by 1947.

Were they, then why does the Ottoman census show the Jews to be the majority. Do explain why you mix data from separate era's to arrive at a figure that meets with your POV . Did you forget that in 1931 the first official census or head count included trans Jordan. The census or head count in 1947 did not include Jordan so is out by at least 30%.


Just to upset you here is a link that shows the demographics and proves you wrong

.AOLWebSuite .AOLAttachedImage {max-width:275px; max-height:275px;} .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default} .AOLWebSuiteM1 {margin: 10px 20px;} .AOLWebSuiteM2 {margin: 5px;} .AOLWebSuiteM3 {margin: 10px;} .dmItemSelected {padding: 2px !important;text-decoration: none !important;color:#fff !important;background-color: #656565 !important;border-radius: 2px;}
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

That was not Palestine. That was just Jerusalem.

Actually it was palestine as that is what the Ottomans refered to palestine as, the sanjak of Jerusalem

 

[P F Tinmore]

The territory was ceded to the control of the Allied Powers for the purpose of self-determination and self-government of various groups as they became capable of said government.​

No they didn't. Read Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Where does it say what you claim in article 30 then


SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


This means that the arab muslims that arrived after JULY 24, 1923 are not covered by this treaty. You cant make a treaty apply to an aspect it was never meant to cover, and as we all know the arab muslim illegally migrated to palestine to swell their numbers

Indeed, the Muslims/Christians were about 93% of the population at the turn of the century. With their mass immigration their numbers zoomed up to 65% by 1947.

Were they, then why does the Ottoman census show the Jews to be the majority. Do explain why you mix data from separate era's to arrive at a figure that meets with your POV . Did you forget that in 1931 the first official census or head count included trans Jordan. The census or head count in 1947 did not include Jordan so is out by at least 30%.


Just to upset you here is a link that shows the demographics and proves you wrong

.AOLWebSuite .AOLAttachedImage {max-width:275px; max-height:275px;} .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default} .AOLWebSuiteM1 {margin: 10px 20px;} .AOLWebSuiteM2 {margin: 5px;} .AOLWebSuiteM3 {margin: 10px;} .dmItemSelected {padding: 2px !important;text-decoration: none !important;color:#fff !important;background-color: #656565 !important;border-radius: 2px;}
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

That was not Palestine. That was just Jerusalem.

Actually it was palestine as that is what the Ottomans refered to palestine as, the sanjak of Jerusalem

Indeed, but that was out the window after the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[Phoenall]

They can't just because they don't have a country to rule!
Maybe Israelis and Palestinians should split in two Palestine then they could have two indipendent countries (a jewish one for Israelis and a muslim one for Palestinians)

That was done in 1923 and the arab muslims wanted it all, so that is why we have the problems we do in the M.E.

The Palestinians wanted all of Palestine?

How dare they.

Have you read the many charters from their governments that say just this ?

 

[Phoenall]

Where does it say what you claim in article 30 then


SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


This means that the arab muslims that arrived after JULY 24, 1923 are not covered by this treaty. You cant make a treaty apply to an aspect it was never meant to cover, and as we all know the arab muslim illegally migrated to palestine to swell their numbers

Indeed, the Muslims/Christians were about 93% of the population at the turn of the century. With their mass immigration their numbers zoomed up to 65% by 1947.

Were they, then why does the Ottoman census show the Jews to be the majority. Do explain why you mix data from separate era's to arrive at a figure that meets with your POV . Did you forget that in 1931 the first official census or head count included trans Jordan. The census or head count in 1947 did not include Jordan so is out by at least 30%.


Just to upset you here is a link that shows the demographics and proves you wrong

.AOLWebSuite .AOLAttachedImage {max-width:275px; max-height:275px;} .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default} .AOLWebSuiteM1 {margin: 10px 20px;} .AOLWebSuiteM2 {margin: 5px;} .AOLWebSuiteM3 {margin: 10px;} .dmItemSelected {padding: 2px !important;text-decoration: none !important;color:#fff !important;background-color: #656565 !important;border-radius: 2px;}
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

That was not Palestine. That was just Jerusalem.

Actually it was palestine as that is what the Ottomans refered to palestine as, the sanjak of Jerusalem

Indeed, but that was out the window after the Treaty of Lausanne.

Was it, or is this yet another deflection because you have been shown to be truly ignorant of the truth

 

[Hollie]

Where does it say what you claim in article 30 then


SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


This means that the arab muslims that arrived after JULY 24, 1923 are not covered by this treaty. You cant make a treaty apply to an aspect it was never meant to cover, and as we all know the arab muslim illegally migrated to palestine to swell their numbers

Indeed, the Muslims/Christians were about 93% of the population at the turn of the century. With their mass immigration their numbers zoomed up to 65% by 1947.

Were they, then why does the Ottoman census show the Jews to be the majority. Do explain why you mix data from separate era's to arrive at a figure that meets with your POV . Did you forget that in 1931 the first official census or head count included trans Jordan. The census or head count in 1947 did not include Jordan so is out by at least 30%.


Just to upset you here is a link that shows the demographics and proves you wrong

.AOLWebSuite .AOLAttachedImage {max-width:275px; max-height:275px;} .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default} .AOLWebSuiteM1 {margin: 10px 20px;} .AOLWebSuiteM2 {margin: 5px;} .AOLWebSuiteM3 {margin: 10px;} .dmItemSelected {padding: 2px !important;text-decoration: none !important;color:#fff !important;background-color: #656565 !important;border-radius: 2px;}
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

That was not Palestine. That was just Jerusalem.

Actually it was palestine as that is what the Ottomans refered to palestine as, the sanjak of Jerusalem

Indeed, but that was out the window after the Treaty of Lausanne.

Do what you usually do and re-write history to appease your tender, bruised islamo-sensibilities.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, the Muslims/Christians were about 93% of the population at the turn of the century. With their mass immigration their numbers zoomed up to 65% by 1947.

Were they, then why does the Ottoman census show the Jews to be the majority. Do explain why you mix data from separate era's to arrive at a figure that meets with your POV . Did you forget that in 1931 the first official census or head count included trans Jordan. The census or head count in 1947 did not include Jordan so is out by at least 30%.


Just to upset you here is a link that shows the demographics and proves you wrong

.AOLWebSuite .AOLAttachedImage {max-width:275px; max-height:275px;} .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default} .AOLWebSuiteM1 {margin: 10px 20px;} .AOLWebSuiteM2 {margin: 5px;} .AOLWebSuiteM3 {margin: 10px;} .dmItemSelected {padding: 2px !important;text-decoration: none !important;color:#fff !important;background-color: #656565 !important;border-radius: 2px;}
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

That was not Palestine. That was just Jerusalem.

Actually it was palestine as that is what the Ottomans refered to palestine as, the sanjak of Jerusalem

Indeed, but that was out the window after the Treaty of Lausanne.

Was it, or is this yet another deflection because you have been shown to be truly ignorant of the truth

 

[Phoenall]

Were they, then why does the Ottoman census show the Jews to be the majority. Do explain why you mix data from separate era's to arrive at a figure that meets with your POV . Did you forget that in 1931 the first official census or head count included trans Jordan. The census or head count in 1947 did not include Jordan so is out by at least 30%.


Just to upset you here is a link that shows the demographics and proves you wrong

.AOLWebSuite .AOLAttachedImage {max-width:275px; max-height:275px;} .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default} .AOLWebSuiteM1 {margin: 10px 20px;} .AOLWebSuiteM2 {margin: 5px;} .AOLWebSuiteM3 {margin: 10px;} .dmItemSelected {padding: 2px !important;text-decoration: none !important;color:#fff !important;background-color: #656565 !important;border-radius: 2px;}
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

That was not Palestine. That was just Jerusalem.

Actually it was palestine as that is what the Ottomans refered to palestine as, the sanjak of Jerusalem

Indeed, but that was out the window after the Treaty of Lausanne.

Was it, or is this yet another deflection because you have been shown to be truly ignorant of the truth

Is that the best you have an islamonazi propaganda map that proves nothing other than you can find what you want on the net

 

[P F Tinmore]

That was not Palestine. That was just Jerusalem.

Actually it was palestine as that is what the Ottomans refered to palestine as, the sanjak of Jerusalem

Indeed, but that was out the window after the Treaty of Lausanne.

Was it, or is this yet another deflection because you have been shown to be truly ignorant of the truth

Is that the best you have an islamonazi propaganda map that proves nothing other than you can find what you want on the net

That is a British Mandate map published by the UN.

 

[SAYIT]

They can't just because they don't have a country to rule! Maybe Israelis and Palestinians should split in two Palestine then they could have two independent countries (a jewish one for Israelis and a muslim one for Palestinians)

That was done in 1923 and the arab muslims wanted it all, so that is why we have the problems we do in the M.E.

The Palestinians wanted all of Palestine? How dare they.

The real Palestinians - both Jew and Arab - created a state in '48 and are now called "Israelis." The mostly itinerant Arabs - an amalgam of Arabs from the region attracted to the new and growing economic hub and its jobs - didn't become "Palestinians" until after the Six Day War.

According to UN standards, any person (and their descendants) who spent two years in “Palestine" prior to 1948 - with or without proof - is now considered a "Palestinian" and was immediately eligible for "3 hots & a cot." But for its political importance in the war against the Jew, the term has no significance.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is home to the largest group of "Palestinians" (now Jordanians) and indeed was once part of the Palestine Mandate.

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist:
“Why is it that on June 4, 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a ‘Palestinian’?”

“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem (1967). Then all of a sudden we were ‘Palestinians'. We removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a ‘Palestinian’ flag”.

“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out.”
QUOTES BY WALID SHOEBAT | A-Z Quotes

 

[PoliticalChic]

They can't just because they don't have a country to rule! Maybe Israelis and Palestinians should split in two Palestine then they could have two independent countries (a jewish one for Israelis and a muslim one for Palestinians)

That was done in 1923 and the arab muslims wanted it all, so that is why we have the problems we do in the M.E.

The Palestinians wanted all of Palestine? How dare they.

The real Palestinians - both Jew and Arab - created a state in '48 and are now called "Israelis." The mostly itinerant Arabs - an amalgam of Arabs from the region attracted to the new and growing economic hub and its jobs - didn't become "Palestinians" until after the Six Day War.

According to UN standards, any person (and their descendants) who spent two years in “Palestine" prior to 1948 - with or without proof - is now considered a "Palestinian" and was immediately eligible for "3 hots & a cot." But for its political importance in the war against the Jew, the term has no significance.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is home to the largest group of "Palestinians" (now Jordanians) and indeed was once part of the Palestine Mandate.

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist:
“Why is it that on June 4, 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a ‘Palestinian’?”

“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem (1967). Then all of a sudden we were ‘Palestinians'. We removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a ‘Palestinian’ flag”.

“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out.”
QUOTES BY WALID SHOEBAT | A-Z Quotes

I spent a few weeks there this summer, and agree with you.

 

[flacaltenn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misread the tense. This statement was made in connection with the post-Agreement phase. Relative to the comment made by MJB12741: "The worst punishment Israel could inflict on the Palestinians would be self government,with self determination without having Israel to suck off of to support them any longer."

The United States government has announced a new contribution of nearly US$ 68 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), including more than US$ 3.8 million for the construction of a multipurpose school building in Zohour to replace the current rented facilities and more than $1.3 million for the extension of Jordan Field operations support office (OSO). The majority of the nearly $68 million contribution will go to the Agency's Programme Budget to support more than 170 UNRWA schools in Jordan; as well as its health clinics and social services programmes, which help Palestine refugees’ efforts to stay healthy and secure.
SOURCE: UNRWA US Announces Additional $68M Contribution to Support Palestine Refugee

This is all about what happens after (if ever) the Israelis and the Palestinians agree and begin a withdrawal from the West Bank.

Where as, the US donor contribution to the Palestinians would probably go down; because they have virtually no expected return on any US investment.

Not true. The money the US gives to the "Palestinians" is to protect Israel.

(COMMENT)

First, the return on US Dollar Investment given to the Palestinians is not now, nor expected to be in the future, about the protection of Israel; not even the US Security Assistance funding for PA Security Forces. It is about setting the conditions to meet Article 43 HR (law and order) prior to an agreed upon withdrawal from the West Bank.

View attachment 90425​

The effectiveness of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians in furthering U.S. policy objectives might be defined by answers to the following questions:

( Quote From U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians CRS RS22967 18 MAR 16)
 How does it affect U.S. influence with Palestinians in working toward regional policy objectives?
 How does it address short-term (i.e., humanitarian) needs?
 How does it address longer-term development, governance, and reform efforts?​

Again, you misunderstand the various purposes for the various kinds of funding, and how the change in conditions changes the direction and focus of funding.

If the Palestinians were to come forth with acceptable conditions that actually (not theoretically) lead to a withdrawal, the US will in all probability, cut a substantial portion of funding to the PA (or successor government); simply because the US would not want that funding to be used in hostile activities against Israel. Likewise, the US would increase funding to Israel's defensive capabilities to offset the potential for staging Arab Forces (Hostile Arab Palestinians) within 9 miles of Netanya, 10 miles from Beersheba, and 11 miles from Tel Aviv.

Currently, the US is getting virtually no return on its investment from the US Dollars and equipment provided to the PA, relative to Israeli Security. In fact, one only needs to read this Discussion Group and watch as violent events occur and the low and order declines relative to the safety and security of Israeli Citizens. Incident levels are increasing --- not decreasing.

Most Respectfully,
R

Currently, the US is getting virtually no return on its investment from the US Dollars and equipment provided to the PA, relative to Israeli Security.​

You don't give military aid to a place that has no generally agreed upon govt. And is split between rival factions that want to kill each other. . Are you nutz? That shouldn't even BE on the table until the proper leadership and authorities are in place.

The security forces in the illegal "PA" in the West Bank is armed, paid, and trained by the US to take out Hamas and other resistance factions. The so called unity government wants to put those forces in Gaza. Of course Hamas is opposed to that. Hamas ran those US supported forces out of Gaza in 2007.

Fatah would have sufficient resources and training to take out all the Hamas interference that they wanted to without us. We are NOT actively supporting Fatah now and in the past -- it was largely POLICE training and arming, not a military wing.

 

[Phoenall]

Actually it was palestine as that is what the Ottomans refered to palestine as, the sanjak of Jerusalem

Indeed, but that was out the window after the Treaty of Lausanne.

Was it, or is this yet another deflection because you have been shown to be truly ignorant of the truth

Is that the best you have an islamonazi propaganda map that proves nothing other than you can find what you want on the net

That is a British Mandate map published by the UN.

LIAR as it is clearly copyrighted by palestine remembered .com making in islamonazi propaganda. Just look in the legend for the details. And as is usual the ottomans were lumped in with the arab muslims legal and illegal. This is to be taken with many pinches of salt because it means NOTHING

 

[flacaltenn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misread the tense. This statement was made in connection with the post-Agreement phase. Relative to the comment made by MJB12741: "The worst punishment Israel could inflict on the Palestinians would be self government,with self determination without having Israel to suck off of to support them any longer."

The United States government has announced a new contribution of nearly US$ 68 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), including more than US$ 3.8 million for the construction of a multipurpose school building in Zohour to replace the current rented facilities and more than $1.3 million for the extension of Jordan Field operations support office (OSO). The majority of the nearly $68 million contribution will go to the Agency's Programme Budget to support more than 170 UNRWA schools in Jordan; as well as its health clinics and social services programmes, which help Palestine refugees’ efforts to stay healthy and secure.
SOURCE: UNRWA US Announces Additional $68M Contribution to Support Palestine Refugee

This is all about what happens after (if ever) the Israelis and the Palestinians agree and begin a withdrawal from the West Bank.

Where as, the US donor contribution to the Palestinians would probably go down; because they have virtually no expected return on any US investment.

Not true. The money the US gives to the "Palestinians" is to protect Israel.

(COMMENT)

First, the return on US Dollar Investment given to the Palestinians is not now, nor expected to be in the future, about the protection of Israel; not even the US Security Assistance funding for PA Security Forces. It is about setting the conditions to meet Article 43 HR (law and order) prior to an agreed upon withdrawal from the West Bank.

View attachment 90425​

The effectiveness of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians in furthering U.S. policy objectives might be defined by answers to the following questions:

( Quote From U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians CRS RS22967 18 MAR 16)
 How does it affect U.S. influence with Palestinians in working toward regional policy objectives?
 How does it address short-term (i.e., humanitarian) needs?
 How does it address longer-term development, governance, and reform efforts?​

Again, you misunderstand the various purposes for the various kinds of funding, and how the change in conditions changes the direction and focus of funding.

If the Palestinians were to come forth with acceptable conditions that actually (not theoretically) lead to a withdrawal, the US will in all probability, cut a substantial portion of funding to the PA (or successor government); simply because the US would not want that funding to be used in hostile activities against Israel. Likewise, the US would increase funding to Israel's defensive capabilities to offset the potential for staging Arab Forces (Hostile Arab Palestinians) within 9 miles of Netanya, 10 miles from Beersheba, and 11 miles from Tel Aviv.

Currently, the US is getting virtually no return on its investment from the US Dollars and equipment provided to the PA, relative to Israeli Security. In fact, one only needs to read this Discussion Group and watch as violent events occur and the low and order declines relative to the safety and security of Israeli Citizens. Incident levels are increasing --- not decreasing.

Most Respectfully,
R

Currently, the US is getting virtually no return on its investment from the US Dollars and equipment provided to the PA, relative to Israeli Security.​

You don't give military aid to a place that has no generally agreed upon govt. And is split between rival factions that want to kill each other. . Are you nutz? That shouldn't even BE on the table until the proper leadership and authorities are in place.

The security forces in the illegal "PA" in the West Bank is armed, paid, and trained by the US to take out Hamas and other resistance factions. The so called unity government wants to put those forces in Gaza. Of course Hamas is opposed to that. Hamas ran those US supported forces out of Gaza in 2007.

Besides -- you're so deep into denying the Pali failings in this crisis to realize that the BIGGER threat are murders and public street executions that Hamas conducts in Gaza. There is no continued "purge" in the West Bank -- but it's a feature of life in Gaza.

 

[Shusha]

The territory was ceded to the control of the Allied Powers for the purpose of self-determination and self-government of various groups as they became capable of said government.​

No they didn't. Read Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

You make no sense. The intent of the Mandate trusteeship was to provide tutelage by advanced nations until such time as the provisionally recognized governments were able to stand alone. THAT is from Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which I am fairly certain you are fond of quoting. That was the INTENT of the Mandate system. You can't possibly be arguing that this was NOT the intent of the Mandate.

What has Article 30 got to do with the intent of the Mandate system?

Are you meaning to say that Article 30 creates some sort of sovereignty or State? Are you saying that the boundaries of various territories under the Mandate can NEVER be changed because Article 30 "fixes" them permanently? How, exactly, does saying that all peoples who normally reside in a particular territory should become nationals of whatever new State is created there in any way affect boundaries or sovereignty?

 

[Shusha]

What treaty mention a "Jewish Palestine?"

Treaty of Sevres. Article 95.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The territory was ceded to the control of the Allied Powers for the purpose of self-determination and self-government of various groups as they became capable of said government.​

No they didn't. Read Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

You make no sense. The intent of the Mandate trusteeship was to provide tutelage by advanced nations until such time as the provisionally recognized governments were able to stand alone. THAT is from Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which I am fairly certain you are fond of quoting. That was the INTENT of the Mandate system. You can't possibly be arguing that this was NOT the intent of the Mandate.

What has Article 30 got to do with the intent of the Mandate system?

Are you meaning to say that Article 30 creates some sort of sovereignty or State? Are you saying that the boundaries of various territories under the Mandate can NEVER be changed because Article 30 "fixes" them permanently? How, exactly, does saying that all peoples who normally reside in a particular territory should become nationals of whatever new State is created there in any way affect boundaries or sovereignty?

Now I know you are confused.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What treaty mention a "Jewish Palestine?"

Treaty of Sevres. Article 95.

Treaty of Sevres was not ratified.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misread the tense. This statement was made in connection with the post-Agreement phase. Relative to the comment made by MJB12741: "The worst punishment Israel could inflict on the Palestinians would be self government,with self determination without having Israel to suck off of to support them any longer."

The United States government has announced a new contribution of nearly US$ 68 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), including more than US$ 3.8 million for the construction of a multipurpose school building in Zohour to replace the current rented facilities and more than $1.3 million for the extension of Jordan Field operations support office (OSO). The majority of the nearly $68 million contribution will go to the Agency's Programme Budget to support more than 170 UNRWA schools in Jordan; as well as its health clinics and social services programmes, which help Palestine refugees’ efforts to stay healthy and secure.
SOURCE: UNRWA US Announces Additional $68M Contribution to Support Palestine Refugee

This is all about what happens after (if ever) the Israelis and the Palestinians agree and begin a withdrawal from the West Bank.

Not true. The money the US gives to the "Palestinians" is to protect Israel.

(COMMENT)

First, the return on US Dollar Investment given to the Palestinians is not now, nor expected to be in the future, about the protection of Israel; not even the US Security Assistance funding for PA Security Forces. It is about setting the conditions to meet Article 43 HR (law and order) prior to an agreed upon withdrawal from the West Bank.

View attachment 90425​

The effectiveness of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians in furthering U.S. policy objectives might be defined by answers to the following questions:

( Quote From U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians CRS RS22967 18 MAR 16)
 How does it affect U.S. influence with Palestinians in working toward regional policy objectives?
 How does it address short-term (i.e., humanitarian) needs?
 How does it address longer-term development, governance, and reform efforts?​

Again, you misunderstand the various purposes for the various kinds of funding, and how the change in conditions changes the direction and focus of funding.

If the Palestinians were to come forth with acceptable conditions that actually (not theoretically) lead to a withdrawal, the US will in all probability, cut a substantial portion of funding to the PA (or successor government); simply because the US would not want that funding to be used in hostile activities against Israel. Likewise, the US would increase funding to Israel's defensive capabilities to offset the potential for staging Arab Forces (Hostile Arab Palestinians) within 9 miles of Netanya, 10 miles from Beersheba, and 11 miles from Tel Aviv.

Currently, the US is getting virtually no return on its investment from the US Dollars and equipment provided to the PA, relative to Israeli Security. In fact, one only needs to read this Discussion Group and watch as violent events occur and the low and order declines relative to the safety and security of Israeli Citizens. Incident levels are increasing --- not decreasing.

Most Respectfully,
R

Currently, the US is getting virtually no return on its investment from the US Dollars and equipment provided to the PA, relative to Israeli Security.​

You don't give military aid to a place that has no generally agreed upon govt. And is split between rival factions that want to kill each other. . Are you nutz? That shouldn't even BE on the table until the proper leadership and authorities are in place.

The security forces in the illegal "PA" in the West Bank is armed, paid, and trained by the US to take out Hamas and other resistance factions. The so called unity government wants to put those forces in Gaza. Of course Hamas is opposed to that. Hamas ran those US supported forces out of Gaza in 2007.

Besides -- you're so deep into denying the Pali failings in this crisis to realize that the BIGGER threat are murders and public street executions that Hamas conducts in Gaza. There is no continued "purge" in the West Bank -- but it's a feature of life in Gaza.

Israel's targeting killing was a big problem in Gaza. Hamas cracked down on collaborators now targeted killings are rare. Some of those worked for the "PA" and some worked directly for Israel.

You are taking things out of context.

 

[Hollie]

What treaty mention a "Jewish Palestine?"

Treaty of Sevres. Article 95.

Treaty of Sevres was not ratified.

Actually, yes it was, endorsed by the Ottoman's.