Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Read the Charter.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another variation of the perpetual victim stance.

Not true. The UN cut and ran without securing the territory in its trust.

(COMMENT)

There was no requirement to do anything about securing the territory. The Mandate ended. Israel declared independence. The violation was the Arab Countries that exceed their authority and crossed there borders using military force to secure their own agenda and acquire territory for their own gain.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandate ended.​

So?

(COMMENT)

Where does it say that anything needs to be protected to your standard.

Most Respectfully,
R

The British Mandate left without setting up a state. The UNPC never showed up to set up a state.

Israel's declaration was unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.

That was not their remit, the only people who could set up a state were the Jews, and to a lesser extent the arab muslims.

Yes it was unilateral and that is why the arab muslims have lost for the last 68 years

The Jews could set up a state Where?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not even close to being correct.

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​

That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.

(COMMENT)

• A foreign government was not imposed by military force.
• A new government was established by the right of self-determination.
• It was defended by military force from direct foreign military (external) interference by aggressor hostile Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pffft.
Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish agency consisting of foreigners and its "permanent population" was a bunch of recently imported foreign settlers.

No by British Mandatory Palestinian citizens who were there at the direct request of the LoN and the Ottomans.

The only attempt at a foreign government was the Palestinian council headed by Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

No by British Mandatory Palestinian citizens who were there at the direct request of the LoN and the Ottomans.​

Links?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The only reason that it appears that there was "no partition" was because the Aggressor Arab Armies that invaded Israel on the same day independence was declared; trying to subvert the intent of the General Assembly and take territory by force.

(COMMENT)

The hostile military intervention failed to some degree. Jordan captured and annexed the West Bank. Egypt captured the Gaza Strip and placed it under it control. And Lebanon and Syria failed.

In the end, it cost the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever reason, there was no partition.

The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter.

There was partition, as both parties agreed to the resolution.

"The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter."

This is such nonsense. Do you have a link for this? My guess is not.

Either way, the Palestinians eventually (1988) declared independence using 181 which of course means they do agree to it.


This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine

Prior thereto, from the perspective of the Palestinian people, the Partition Resolution had been deemed to be a criminal act that was perpetrated upon them by the United Nations. Today, the acceptance of the Partition Resolution in their actual Declaration of Independence

Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Then Israel should have waited until 1988 to declare independence.

Why not the arab muslims should have declared in 1948 and then we might not have had all this trouble

They did.

Nope the Egyptians tried to declare on the whole of Palestine illegally after the time limit, they had the chance from 1947 to declare independence and refused. It took them until 1988 to make the first move because they were losing far too much land by their stupidity. They still have not declared which land and to what borders they are going to claim, other than that in their charter of the river to the sea.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now your just trying to pretend you have a reading comprehension problem.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just quibbling now.

(COMMENT)

When the Mandate ended, and Israel Declared Independence, it was up to Israel to defend itself (which it successfully did). The Arab Palestinians immediately lost all their territory to the advancing Arab Aggressor Armies (shame on them).

Most Respectfully,
R

Still ducking the question?

No you are ducking the answers

Not really.

What was my question?

What was his answer?

The many he has given that you don't like, and then accuse him of ducking.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Read the Charter.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another variation of the perpetual victim stance.

(COMMENT)

There was no requirement to do anything about securing the territory. The Mandate ended. Israel declared independence. The violation was the Arab Countries that exceed their authority and crossed there borders using military force to secure their own agenda and acquire territory for their own gain.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandate ended.​

So?

(COMMENT)

Where does it say that anything needs to be protected to your standard.

Most Respectfully,
R

The British Mandate left without setting up a state. The UNPC never showed up to set up a state.

Israel's declaration was unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.

That was not their remit, the only people who could set up a state were the Jews, and to a lesser extent the arab muslims.

Yes it was unilateral and that is why the arab muslims have lost for the last 68 years

The Jews could set up a state Where?

Here on the land allocated for their national home by the LoN under International law


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory

PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.​

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not even close to being correct.

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​

That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.

(COMMENT)

• A foreign government was not imposed by military force.
• A new government was established by the right of self-determination.
• It was defended by military force from direct foreign military (external) interference by aggressor hostile Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pffft.
Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish agency consisting of foreigners and its "permanent population" was a bunch of recently imported foreign settlers.

No by British Mandatory Palestinian citizens who were there at the direct request of the LoN and the Ottomans.

The only attempt at a foreign government was the Palestinian council headed by Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

No by British Mandatory Palestinian citizens who were there at the direct request of the LoN and the Ottomans.​

Links?

To what, and why do you keep asking for the same links to the same things, do you forget that you got them yesterday.

It is in the LoN MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that you are given every single day, and it is tied into the citizenship order.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion).

No by British Mandatory Palestinian citizens who were there at the direct request of the LoN and the Ottomans.

Links?

(COMMENT)

Whatever perspective you may hold, a key factor in the evolution of the entire development of the Jewish National Home (JNH), is that the Allied Powers were to decide (at San Remo 1920) the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, one of the defeated Central Powers in World War I. And the Allied Powers did adopt a plan which included the establishment of a JNH.

League of Nations Palestine Mandate ... "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage," SOURCE: Mandate for Palestine Article 6

Once upon a time, the Jews in the Ottoman Empire were useful. They were well-educated, knew several languages and had wide-ranging contacts, especially in business, with European countries – things which the Turks lacked. And unlike the Greeks and Armenians, they hadn’t ever gone to war against the Turks so, by default they had to be more trustable. SOURCE: The Ottoman Files

Following Ottoman territorial losses in the Balkans owing to the Turco-Russian war and the ensuing Berlin Treaty, mass immigration of Turks and Jews starts towards Turkey. The Jews prepare festivities for the 400th anniversary of their arrival from Spain. SULTAN ABDULHAMID II is making plans for installing 200,000 Jewish immigrants from Russia in the south east, but this remains as a project. SOURCE: Ottoman Sultans and Their Jewish Subjects​

The Treaty of Berlin was the last great action of the Congress of Berlin (mid-1878); and shortly thereafter, what is often referred to as the First Aliyah --- gradually began. --- It was the first contemporary wave of Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine; with the Jewish constituency streaming mostly from Eastern Europe. This mass emigration of an estimated 2.5 million Jews began at the end of the 19th and to tapper-off in the first decade of the 20th century (generally speaking 1882 to 1903), establishing about 25 to 30 Moshava's (rural settlements).

I think this answers the question.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The only reason that it appears that there was "no partition" was because the Aggressor Arab Armies that invaded Israel on the same day independence was declared; trying to subvert the intent of the General Assembly and take territory by force.

(COMMENT)

The hostile military intervention failed to some degree. Jordan captured and annexed the West Bank. Egypt captured the Gaza Strip and placed it under it control. And Lebanon and Syria failed.

In the end, it cost the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever reason, there was no partition.

The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter.

There was partition, as both parties agreed to the resolution.

"The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter."

This is such nonsense. Do you have a link for this? My guess is not.

Either way, the Palestinians eventually (1988) declared independence using 181 which of course means they do agree to it.


This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine

Prior thereto, from the perspective of the Palestinian people, the Partition Resolution had been deemed to be a criminal act that was perpetrated upon them by the United Nations. Today, the acceptance of the Partition Resolution in their actual Declaration of Independence

Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Then Israel should have waited until 1988 to declare independence.

Why not the arab muslims should have declared in 1948 and then we might not have had all this trouble

They did.

If they has a legit declaration in 1948, they would not have had to do so again in 1988. So in other words, there was no DOI in 1948 by the 'Palestinians'

 

[toastman]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

 

[montelatici]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration. Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?

 

[toastman]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration. Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?

An invasion is a military offensive . Their intention was not to evict anyone, it was to build a home for themselves.

 

[montelatici]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration. Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?

An invasion is a military offensive . Their intention was not to evict anyone, it was to build a home for themselves.

You've got to be kidding. You are still on that ridiculous tack. Of course the Zionists intended to evict the existing residents and they fully intended to establish a Jewish state, where 93% of the people were Christians and Muslims. And it was an invasion. An invasion need not be military. Just stop your nonsense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration. Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?

An invasion is a military offensive . Their intention was not to evict anyone, it was to build a home for themselves.

That is true and Britain's military was in the service of the Zionists.

 

[Phoenall]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

The arab muslims I would call illegal immigrants of course as the UN reports show that two thirds of the illegal immigrants were arab muslims, isn't that right Abdul as Roudy showed you from your own links.

 

[Phoenall]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration. Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?

An invasion is a military offensive . Their intention was not to evict anyone, it was to build a home for themselves.

You've got to be kidding. You are still on that ridiculous tack. Of course the Zionists intended to evict the existing residents and they fully intended to establish a Jewish state, where 93% of the people were Christians and Muslims. And it was an invasion. An invasion need not be military. Just stop your nonsense.

BULLSHIT and stop posting RACIST LIES

 

[Phoenall]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration. Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?

An invasion is a military offensive . Their intention was not to evict anyone, it was to build a home for themselves.

That is true and Britain's military was in the service of the Zionists.

LINK ?

 

[Phoenall]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration. Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?

BULLSHIT Now stop your RACIST LYING

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration. Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?

An invasion is a military offensive . Their intention was not to evict anyone, it was to build a home for themselves.

That is true and Britain's military was in the service of the Zionists.

LINK ?

I realize that Israel supporters are not deep thinkers. Look at the highlights of the League of Nations Covenant as applied to mandates.

"...which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves..."

"...the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust..."

"...the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted..."

"...the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."​

If Britain followed the Covenant it could have accomplished its goal with a handful of civilians. Yet it kept its military presence and actually increased its troop strength in the '30s.

So what's up with all that military?

 

[toastman]

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" (often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population? European tourism?

Mass immigration , which is what it was.

Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration. Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?

An invasion is a military offensive . Their intention was not to evict anyone, it was to build a home for themselves.

You've got to be kidding. You are still on that ridiculous tack. Of course the Zionists intended to evict the existing residents and they fully intended to establish a Jewish state, where 93% of the people were Christians and Muslims. And it was an invasion. An invasion need not be military. Just stop your nonsense.

I already proved to you what the definition of an invasion is. If you want me to make a fool of you again then I have no problem with that.

So all the Jews who migrated to the region wanted to evict the locals? Can you prove that ?