collective punishments

[aris2chat]

aris2chat, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, the modern establishment (20th Century) of "Palestine" was arbitarily set by the allied powers pursuant to the Part III, Section VII, Treaty of Sevres (1920) (Article 95), "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers."

How many more times does it have to be proven to you that palestines borders were those that included Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. They were defined as such so that the LoN mandates ( note more than one mandate ) could allocate LoN land to the above nations to create them inside Palestine. They did the same with the NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS after taking 70% of the original allocation away to placate two arab princes. This led to the arabs realising the LoN was weakened and immediately started to attack the British and the Jews . This led to many Islamic terrorist attacks and finally the Jewish terrorist attacks on valid military targets.
The LoN won the land at the end of WW1 and it was theirs to do with as they wanted, read the relevant treaty assigning the sovereignty of the land to the LoN and how the ottomans were left with a tiny portion of their vast empire. The Palestine you know is but a small part of the ancient Palestine that existed before the muslims were invented by the false prophet.

After WWI and WWII, most of the world was redrawn. The maps were vastly changed. No different than dividing up the remains of the Ottoman empire. Israel is no more artificial that any other country that was changed or created during that time. Even now the maps are in flux. Global nations have never really been static.

Time people come to the realization that Israel exists and then decide how to accept and move forward from that point in a way to benefit both/all sides.

(COMMENT)

The disposition of the territory was at the discretion of the Allied Powers.

Yes, I agree! It is an old argument in which the Arab of the region felt slighted. But it is time to move on and develop a measure of regional stability.

(COMMENT)

Given the handy work in self-governance and self-determination of both the Arab regionally and the Arab localized to Palestine, it will probably take another century for them to acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities to be successful. These former holdings of the Ottoman Empire have been in constant turmoil and distress ever since they were liberated out from under sovereign Ottoman control. There is no reason to assume that they can achieve peacefulness and civility in the modern age.

I cannot imagine how they see any honor heritage in what they do.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan, Syria and Iraq were the result of the Hussein's loosing Mecca to the Sauds.
The creation of Israel was no different.

And.......it changes yet again

ISIS declares creation of new Islamic state with own headman as supreme leader
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, an Al Qaeda break-away organization, declared Sunday the creation of a new 'caliphate' — an Islamic state led by one religious and political leader, or 'caliph' — that covers 600 miles in Iraq and Syria. The Sunni Muslim militant organization named its own leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph.
BY Daniel Beekman
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Sunday, June 29, 2014, 5:48 PM

 

[irosie91]

oh gee-----Iraq is going to disappear?

 

[Indofred]

The land was never Palestinian in the first place, it was ottoman until 1919 when it was handed to the allies as SPOILS OF WAR. .

So what you're saying is, if land is occupied, the original owners lose all rights to that land.
So, France, because of the German occupation of WWII, belongs to Germany.

I'd write a letter to the Frogs without delay, if only you weren't talking bollocks.

 

[irosie91]

The land was never Palestinian in the first place, it was ottoman until 1919 when it was handed to the allies as SPOILS OF WAR. .

So what you're saying is, if land is occupied, the original owners lose all rights to that land.
So, France, because of the German occupation of WWII, belongs to Germany.

I'd write a letter to the Frogs without delay, if only you weren't talking bollocks.

what ORIGINAL OWNERS???? those Arabic speaking guys who have been residing in
in the "ORIGINAL NABLUS" for 7000 years? ---or is it 10,000
years----ie since the last ice age? It is not clear to me that we have established
definition for "indigenous" or even "land ownership" Am I indigenous to the city in which
I now live? I have lived here for two years

 

[toastman]

It'll NEVER happen? It HAS to happen. Even Rome wasn't eternal.

actually----rome is still there ----isn't it?

The empire isn't. And the corollary is, Tel Aviv will be there, Israel won't. But let's hush and let Tinmore talk.

Ah , the obligatory Israel won't be around in the future comment.
What a stupid comparison you made with Rome. That was alooonng time ago.
Countries don't just cease from existing.

You and your ilk will cease to exist one day, however. The sooner the better , Nazi shill.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get this wrong all the time.

In 1967/68, the Palestinians updated and formalized their threat against Israel; and essentially declared Jihad and Armed Struggle against Israel with the goal of attempting to control all of the former territory under the British Mandate.

The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advise according to the League of Nations Covenant. It had no territory of its own. Palestine existed separate from the mandate.

So, what was your purpose for using that term?

(REFERENCE)

Title.1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​

SOURCE: AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE, The 10th day of August, 1922

This revised edition of “The Question of Palestine and the United Nations”
reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among
these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947
of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish
State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy
city of Jerusalem.

• Page 8 is a
  
  showing the "Boundary of Former Palestine Mandate."
  
• Page 15: "Israel came to occupy the entire area of the former British Mandate of Palestine."

Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

- See more at: Egypt-Israel peace treatyt/ "Camp David" - Text/Non-UN document (26 March 1979)

(COMMENT)

Palestine was the short title for the territory under the Mandate of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are basing your post on the false premise that the mandate was Palestine. Everything in history says otherwise.

 

[P F Tinmore]

aris2chat, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, the modern establishment (20th Century) of "Palestine" was arbitarily set by the allied powers pursuant to the Part III, Section VII, Treaty of Sevres (1920) (Article 95), "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers."

How many more times does it have to be proven to you that palestines borders were those that included Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. They were defined as such so that the LoN mandates ( note more than one mandate ) could allocate LoN land to the above nations to create them inside Palestine. They did the same with the NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS after taking 70% of the original allocation away to placate two arab princes. This led to the arabs realising the LoN was weakened and immediately started to attack the British and the Jews . This led to many Islamic terrorist attacks and finally the Jewish terrorist attacks on valid military targets.
The LoN won the land at the end of WW1 and it was theirs to do with as they wanted, read the relevant treaty assigning the sovereignty of the land to the LoN and how the ottomans were left with a tiny portion of their vast empire. The Palestine you know is but a small part of the ancient Palestine that existed before the muslims were invented by the false prophet.

After WWI and WWII, most of the world was redrawn. The maps were vastly changed. No different than dividing up the remains of the Ottoman empire. Israel is no more artificial that any other country that was changed or created during that time. Even now the maps are in flux. Global nations have never really been static.

Time people come to the realization that Israel exists and then decide how to accept and move forward from that point in a way to benefit both/all sides.

(COMMENT)

The disposition of the territory was at the discretion of the Allied Powers.

Yes, I agree! It is an old argument in which the Arab of the region felt slighted. But it is time to move on and develop a measure of regional stability.

(COMMENT)

Given the handy work in self-governance and self-determination of both the Arab regionally and the Arab localized to Palestine, it will probably take another century for them to acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities to be successful. These former holdings of the Ottoman Empire have been in constant turmoil and distress ever since they were liberated out from under sovereign Ottoman control. There is no reason to assume that they can achieve peacefulness and civility in the modern age.

I cannot imagine how they see any honor heritage in what they do.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the modern establishment (20th Century) of "Palestine" was arbitarily set by the allied powers pursuant to the Part III, Section VII, Treaty of Sevres (1920) (Article 95), "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers."

The Treaty of Sevres was not ratified.

Why are you linking to an irrelevant source?

 

[MHunterB]

"You are basing your post on the false premise that the mandate was Palestine. Everything in history says otherwise. "

Tinny, what exactly is 'everything in history' supposed to mean? Isn't it the same as 'everybody knows'?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"You are basing your post on the false premise that the mandate was Palestine. Everything in history says otherwise. "

Tinny, what exactly is 'everything in history' supposed to mean? Isn't it the same as 'everybody knows'?

Not at all. Everything is in the documents that you have not read.

 

[MHunterB]

Tinny, there was never any independent political entity known as 'Palestine' - although there *could* have been in '47, if the Palestinians hadn't refused to declare their state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinny, there was never any independent political entity known as 'Palestine' - although there *could* have been in '47, if the Palestinians hadn't refused to declare their state.

Not required. The rights of the people apply to people who live in non self governing territories also.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, MHunterB, et al,

What are "rights?" What are they if the indigenous population does not avial themselves of these "rights" and does not maintain them.

Tinny, there was never any independent political entity known as 'Palestine' - although there *could* have been in '47, if the Palestinians hadn't refused to declare their state.

Not required. The rights of the people apply to people who live in non self governing territories also.

(COMMENT)

But, for the last thousand years (plus), there has always been a governmental authority over the territory of Palestine. The Israelis have just as many rights, if not more, than the Arab Palestinian. They were given an opportunity, they took the opportunity, and the made something of the opportunity. None of which can be said for the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

the "rights" of what 'people" Mr Tin?------there has been very significant
jewish population in the Middle East for thousands of years despite the genocidal
efforts of invaders-----the Syrian/greek alliance, Babylonians, Egptians, Rome and its
empire of filth and destruction that wrecked havoc for more than 1000 years and the
hordes out of Arabia. In fact the only extant "people" from ancient times
(ancient arbitrarily ----> 2500 years) still identifiable as a people with a culture,
language, religion ------are THE JEWS of the middle east (even the tiny groups
of Zoroastrians that dotted the area were wiped out by the Arabian hordes) They have
no rights-----simply because your pals decimated their numbers?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, MHunterB, et al,

What are "rights?" What are they if the indigenous population does not avial themselves of these "rights" and does not maintain them.

Tinny, there was never any independent political entity known as 'Palestine' - although there *could* have been in '47, if the Palestinians hadn't refused to declare their state.

Not required. The rights of the people apply to people who live in non self governing territories also.

(COMMENT)

But, for the last thousand years (plus), there has always been a governmental authority over the territory of Palestine. The Israelis have just as many rights, if not more, than the Arab Palestinian. They were given an opportunity, they took the opportunity, and the made something of the opportunity. None of which can be said for the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Combine the military of a world super power with a well funded bunch of criminals from Europe against a basically unarmed civilian population and you blame the Palestinians of not maintaining their rights.

That is why external interference is illegal.

 

[irosie91]

P F Tinmore, MHunterB, et al,

What are "rights?" What are they if the indigenous population does not avial themselves of these "rights" and does not maintain them.

Not required. The rights of the people apply to people who live in non self governing territories also.

(COMMENT)

But, for the last thousand years (plus), there has always been a governmental authority over the territory of Palestine. The Israelis have just as many rights, if not more, than the Arab Palestinian. They were given an opportunity, they took the opportunity, and the made something of the opportunity. None of which can be said for the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Combine the military of a world super power with a well funded bunch of criminals from Europe against a basically unarmed civilian population and you blame the Palestinians of not maintaining their rights.

That is why external interference is illegal.

Mr tin-----to what are you referring? The 1967 attack by the world superpower ---USSR
upon the original "palestinians" to wit Israel? It is true that the criminal attackers---
called "arabs" of the would be caliphate the UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC were far better armed
than were the erst while Palestinian jews-----but beyond that fact to which you allude----
your statement makes no sense

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, MHunterB, et al,

What are "rights?" What are they if the indigenous population does not avial themselves of these "rights" and does not maintain them.

Not required. The rights of the people apply to people who live in non self governing territories also.

(COMMENT)

But, for the last thousand years (plus), there has always been a governmental authority over the territory of Palestine. The Israelis have just as many rights, if not more, than the Arab Palestinian. They were given an opportunity, they took the opportunity, and the made something of the opportunity. None of which can be said for the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Combine the military of a world super power with a well funded bunch of criminals from Europe against a basically unarmed civilian population and you blame the Palestinians of not maintaining their rights.

That is why external interference is illegal.

And as the evidence shows the only people to exert ILLEGAL OUTSIDE INFLUENCE were the arab league when they refused the Palestinian muslims the right to declare independence.

But I would like a reliable link from a non ISLAMONAZI source that shows "a world super power joined forces with a bunch of criminals from Europe against an unarmed civilian population". It must contain the words highlighted above

 

[irosie91]

And as the evidence shows the only people to exert ILLEGAL OUTSIDE INFLUENCE were the arab league when they refused the Palestinian muslims the right to declare independence.

But I would like a reliable link from a non ISLAMONAZI source that shows "a world super power joined forces with a bunch of criminals from Europe against an unarmed civilian population". It must contain the words highlighted above


I would be fascinated to know just when this phenomenon took place----and where----
and who was the "SUPERPOWER" involved

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake here; or maybe not.

P F Tinmore, MHunterB, et al,

What are "rights?" What are they if the indigenous population does not avial themselves of these "rights" and does not maintain them.

Not required. The rights of the people apply to people who live in non self governing territories also.

(COMMENT)

But, for the last thousand years (plus), there has always been a governmental authority over the territory of Palestine. The Israelis have just as many rights, if not more, than the Arab Palestinian. They were given an opportunity, they took the opportunity, and the made something of the opportunity. None of which can be said for the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Combine the military of a world super power with a well funded bunch of criminals from Europe against a basically unarmed civilian population and you blame the Palestinians of not maintaining their rights.

That is why external interference is illegal.

(COMMENT)

Of the three major wars fought over the territory, the only foreign (external influence) to set foot on the battlefield were those boot belonging to the Arab League.

Remembering that the immigration for those Jew People willing to reconstitute the National Home was approved by the Allied Powers.

Bantering around this allegation of "criminals from Europe" is merely a continuation of the "virtual victim strategy." It has nothing to do with the real-world construct of reality. It is propaganda to incite violence and promote hatred; a common theme in Arab Palestinian world.

The external interference was demonstrated by the Arab League (Military Elements of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen and Egypt) that crossed into the territory when Israel exercised its right to self-determination and declared independence. It was the Arab League that attempted to subvert the will of the UN General Assembly and deny the Jewish people their rights as made plain by the Assembly.

For nearly seven decades we've heard (over and over again) how the Arab Palestinian was denied the rights and how they have been a victim of a huge miscarriage of justice.

Let's not forget that:

The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

13. In conclusion, the Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to stress the following:

(a) The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.

(b) The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.

(c) It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.

(d) The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success. It will be far better for the eclipsed prestige of this organization not to start on this adventure.

(e) The United Nations prestige will be better served by abandoning, not enforcing such an injustice.

(f) The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.

(g) The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

I beg to remain, etc.
/s/ Isa Nakhleh
Representative of the
Arab Higher Committee​

SOURCE: A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948

The Arab Palestinian did not have to go to war as the belligerent aggressor; they chose to go to war. Just as they chose to NOT participate in the process.

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

This legacy lives on today. If the Arabs want to point a finger at someone, they need to look in the mirror. They started the seven decades of conflict, and continue to refrain from participating in a good faith peace process to this very day.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake here; or maybe not.

P F Tinmore, MHunterB, et al,

What are "rights?" What are they if the indigenous population does not avial themselves of these "rights" and does not maintain them.


(COMMENT)

But, for the last thousand years (plus), there has always been a governmental authority over the territory of Palestine. The Israelis have just as many rights, if not more, than the Arab Palestinian. They were given an opportunity, they took the opportunity, and the made something of the opportunity. None of which can be said for the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Combine the military of a world super power with a well funded bunch of criminals from Europe against a basically unarmed civilian population and you blame the Palestinians of not maintaining their rights.

That is why external interference is illegal.

(COMMENT)

Of the three major wars fought over the territory, the only foreign (external influence) to set foot on the battlefield were those boot belonging to the Arab League.

Remembering that the immigration for those Jew People willing to reconstitute the National Home was approved by the Allied Powers.

Bantering around this allegation of "criminals from Europe" is merely a continuation of the "virtual victim strategy." It has nothing to do with the real-world construct of reality. It is propaganda to incite violence and promote hatred; a common theme in Arab Palestinian world.

The external interference was demonstrated by the Arab League (Military Elements of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen and Egypt) that crossed into the territory when Israel exercised its right to self-determination and declared independence. It was the Arab League that attempted to subvert the will of the UN General Assembly and deny the Jewish people their rights as made plain by the Assembly.

For nearly seven decades we've heard (over and over again) how the Arab Palestinian was denied the rights and how they have been a victim of a huge miscarriage of justice.

Let's not forget that:

The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

13. In conclusion, the Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to stress the following:

(a) The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.

(b) The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.

(c) It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.

(d) The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success. It will be far better for the eclipsed prestige of this organization not to start on this adventure.

(e) The United Nations prestige will be better served by abandoning, not enforcing such an injustice.

(f) The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.

(g) The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

I beg to remain, etc.
/s/ Isa Nakhleh
Representative of the
Arab Higher Committee​

SOURCE: A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948

The Arab Palestinian did not have to go to war as the belligerent aggressor; they chose to go to war. Just as they chose to NOT participate in the process.

The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

This legacy lives on today. If the Arabs want to point a finger at someone, they need to look in the mirror. They started the seven decades of conflict, and continue to refrain from participating in a good faith peace process to this very day.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[amity1844]

P F Tinmore, MHunterB, et al,

What are "rights?" What are they if the indigenous population does not avial themselves of these "rights" and does not maintain them.


(COMMENT)

But, for the last thousand years (plus), there has always been a governmental authority over the territory of Palestine. The Israelis have just as many rights, if not more, than the Arab Palestinian. They were given an opportunity, they took the opportunity, and the made something of the opportunity. None of which can be said for the Arab Palestinian.

Herbert Most Respectfully,
R

Combine the military of a world super power with a well funded bunch of criminals from Europe against a basically unarmed civilian population and you blame the Palestinians of not maintaining their rights.

That is why external interference is illegal.

And as the evidence shows the only people to exert ILLEGAL OUTSIDE INFLUENCE were the arab league when they refused the Palestinian muslims the right to declare independence.

But I would like a reliable link from a non ISLAMONAZI source that shows "a world super power joined forces with a bunch of criminals from Europe against an unarmed civilian population". It must contain the words highlighted above

Well, let's see. There's the Sykes-Picot agreement and then there's the Balfour declaration.
Before there was very much Jewish immigration into Palestine, Britain agreed with Samuel to foster the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, and then appointed Samuel himself as high commissioner. No attempt at neutrality there. AND no attempt to achieve Zionist aims without resort to smuggled weaponry.
Does that satisfy your requirements?