"Free Palestine

[Dogmaphobe]

When does a people become a "people" worthy of being recognized as such? Is it arbritrary depending on whether you approve of the group or not?

Before the events referenced in such a way as to try to justify various points of view, not after, and because the group identity arose naturally rather than through a product of cynical manipulation and deceit. Now, YOU certainly approve of a group that has elevated mass murder to a position of highest honor, which treats women as nothing but brood mares to produce as many potential killers as possible, and which invests it's resources into an enormous propaganda apparatus geared towards fooling useful idiots into supporting all this, but it isn't a matter of approval, but of reality. The reality of the situation is that "Palestinians" did not exist as a people at the time inevitably referenced by deceitful, cult-like followers such as yourself who have made the promotion of their agenda into their very Raison D' Etre.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947. Arabs vacated the property upon which they squatted in 1947. Hostilities ensued after Arabs attacked Jews that resulted in hostile Arabs leaving.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When does a people become a "people" worthy of being recognized as such? Is it arbritrary depending on whether you approve of the group or not?

Before the events referenced in such a way as to try to justify various points of view, not after, and because the group identity arose naturally rather than through a product of cynical manipulation and deceit. Now, YOU certainly approve of a group that has elevated mass murder to a position of highest honor, which treats women as nothing but brood mares to produce as many potential killers as possible, and which invests it's resources into an enormous propaganda apparatus geared towards fooling useful idiots into supporting all this, but it isn't a matter of approval, but of reality. The reality of the situation is that "Palestinians" did not exist as a people at the time inevitably referenced by deceitful, cult-like followers such as yourself who have made the promotion of their agenda into their very Raison D' Etre.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947. Arabs vacated the property upon which they squatted in 1947. Hostilities ensued after Arabs attacked Jews that resulted in hostile Arabs leaving.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did not want to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

And you should know that people in non self governing territories have the same rights as those livings in independent states.

The Palestinians never rejected a state. They rejected colonialism.

 

[Phoenall]

But they are still British. You do not have separate countries or "self determination" for each of those groups. Arabs had tribal labeling but they were arabs. Of the many tribes, they did not form separate nations.

I deliberately chose English regions, but "British" will do at a pinch to demonstrate the regional variations within one country. Historically we did have sperate kingdoms for many English regions and many do want regional autonomy, (a recent genetic survey has found that a Geordie is genetically different from a Cornishman, but thats a topic for another forum) not just te scots or the Welsh.

My point was that the same or something similar applies to Palestinians, Syrians, etc. While they were all Ottoman subjects, a Syrian could tell a Palestinian from a Bedouin by their appearance, cultural traits and dialect. Yet all of them were considered a homogenous group: "Arabs", by the Western colonial powers who drew arbitrary lines in the sand and created a country of "Syria", "Palestine", "Jordan", etc.

even Scotland voted against separation.

Palestinians were never a state or kingdom. It is simply a roman name given to three part of the gaza sinai. It was never an autonomous rule nor a people.
How is it similar? They were tribes, arabs, various other races but not palestinian by race, language, religion, culture or anything else. It is simply a foreign designation of name for the area, not an arab name. Till the mandate they never called themselves palestinians or call the land palestine. Even as a sanjak within the syria vilayet it was called jerusalem, beirut, damascus, zor, mount lebanon, safad, nablus. Not since the 16th century had there even been a gaza within syria.

Till the mandate they would never have called themselves palestinian or claimed to have been part of any place called palestine. It was not in their language.

So what? Palestine has been a geo-political entity since at least Herodotus, and it's inhabitants were Palestinians, regardless of what they called themselves or what others may called them. Kurds have never had a State or Kingdom, but no-one denies they are a "nation".

So when did the Syrians and Egyptians start calling themselves palestinians ?

When did the Syrians start calling themselves Syrian?
When did the Egyptians start calling themselves Egyptian?

Did the Souix have a border? A capital? A currency? A GDP?

They had the most important thing -- a sense of identity as a people.

"Palestinians" were simply made up as a propaganda tool against Jews and had no such identity until encouraged by the Egyptian Named Arafat to start calling themselves such.

The Palestinians formed an identity as a group of people who lived in that area - every group of people start out that way.

Well before the arab muslims started calling themselves Palestinians. At least 100 years before


And amongst that group were Jews who were given the chance to form a homeland and agreed. It seems that you are siding with the islamonazi stooges and Jew hating white supremacists in denying the Jews their human rights and wanting them to be stateless wandering bums so you can treat them like something you have stepped in.

Why is this, what have the Jews ever done to you to deserve such treatment ?

 

[Phoenall]

As has been pointed out to you innumerable times, there has never been a country called Palestine run by "Palestinians". You are uneducable and so keep repeating this stupid nonsense.

Yet they lived there. Why should they be forced to leave?

Because they don't let others live, of course.

Really now....there seem to be a whole lot of "others" alive.

Not really when you consider the numbers there were before the Islamic invasion, everywhere they invade they ethnically cleanse and decimate the indigenous

That doesn't jive with history.

Who's history are we talking about here, as the history of islam is steeped in mass murders, genocides and ethnic cleansing. Just look at the Cathedral of Bones in Spain built using the skeletons of the many hundreds of thousands murdered by muslims, then say that history is wrong

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did not want to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

And you should know that people in non self governing territories have the same rights as those livings in independent states.

The Palestinians never rejected a state. They rejected colonialism.

NO they rejected the rights of the Jews to show free determination and ability to govern themselves. But they waited until they had their cut of the land first before resorting to violence and terrorism to kill the Jews. As is usual you are refusing to allow the Jews the same rights as the arab muslims because of your anti-Semitism and Jew hatred.


And for the record the arab muslims in Palestine have been self governing since 1988, when they first acquired free determination. They then refused to take the next step on the roud to full autonomy showing that they are not yet ready for a state of their own.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I deliberately chose English regions, but "British" will do at a pinch to demonstrate the regional variations within one country. Historically we did have sperate kingdoms for many English regions and many do want regional autonomy, (a recent genetic survey has found that a Geordie is genetically different from a Cornishman, but thats a topic for another forum) not just te scots or the Welsh.

My point was that the same or something similar applies to Palestinians, Syrians, etc. While they were all Ottoman subjects, a Syrian could tell a Palestinian from a Bedouin by their appearance, cultural traits and dialect. Yet all of them were considered a homogenous group: "Arabs", by the Western colonial powers who drew arbitrary lines in the sand and created a country of "Syria", "Palestine", "Jordan", etc.

even Scotland voted against separation.

Palestinians were never a state or kingdom. It is simply a roman name given to three part of the gaza sinai. It was never an autonomous rule nor a people.
How is it similar? They were tribes, arabs, various other races but not palestinian by race, language, religion, culture or anything else. It is simply a foreign designation of name for the area, not an arab name. Till the mandate they never called themselves palestinians or call the land palestine. Even as a sanjak within the syria vilayet it was called jerusalem, beirut, damascus, zor, mount lebanon, safad, nablus. Not since the 16th century had there even been a gaza within syria.

Till the mandate they would never have called themselves palestinian or claimed to have been part of any place called palestine. It was not in their language.

So what? Palestine has been a geo-political entity since at least Herodotus, and it's inhabitants were Palestinians, regardless of what they called themselves or what others may called them. Kurds have never had a State or Kingdom, but no-one denies they are a "nation".

So when did the Syrians and Egyptians start calling themselves palestinians ?

When did the Syrians start calling themselves Syrian?
When did the Egyptians start calling themselves Egyptian?

Did the Souix have a border? A capital? A currency? A GDP?

They had the most important thing -- a sense of identity as a people.

"Palestinians" were simply made up as a propaganda tool against Jews and had no such identity until encouraged by the Egyptian Named Arafat to start calling themselves such.

The Palestinians formed an identity as a group of people who lived in that area - every group of people start out that way.

Well before the arab muslims started calling themselves Palestinians. At least 100 years before


And amongst that group were Jews who were given the chance to form a homeland and agreed. It seems that you are siding with the islamonazi stooges and Jew hating white supremacists in denying the Jews their human rights and wanting them to be stateless wandering bums so you can treat them like something you have stepped in.

Why is this, what have the Jews ever done to you to deserve such treatment ?

Well before the arab muslims started calling themselves Palestinians. At least 100 years before​

Ahhh, a rose by any other name...

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did not want to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

And you should know that people in non self governing territories have the same rights as those livings in independent states.

The Palestinians never rejected a state. They rejected colonialism.

NO they rejected the rights of the Jews to show free determination and ability to govern themselves. But they waited until they had their cut of the land first before resorting to violence and terrorism to kill the Jews. As is usual you are refusing to allow the Jews the same rights as the arab muslims because of your anti-Semitism and Jew hatred.

Pfffft, what a load of crap.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are trying to project the image of the Arab Palestinian as the virtual victim.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did not want to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

(COMMENT)

There were no colonial schemes in the sense you are suggesting. The Mandatory, through the tasking of the Allied Powers, was to provide advice, administration (executive and legislative), and assistance until such time as the Arab could stand alone (an Article 22 prerequisite). The Arab Palestinian was uncooperative and certainly did not follow the steps preparatory to independence. Thus they were left behind by their own choice (self-determination).

And you should know that people in non self governing territories have the same rights as those livings in independent states.

(COMMENT)

• (SUB TEXT QUESTION) Who gave the people of non-self governing territories this "right" beyond the self-determination of the Charter?
  • That would not be by chance the non-binding 1960'ish A/RES/15/1514(XV) would it --- (not in play at the time Israel declared independence pursuant to the directions it received from the UN)?

Having the "right" is much different than a people that know how to exercise that right and stand alone as a nation. It is a much different thing for a people not to know how to establish independence and so not use the right --- then it is --- for a people to be denied the right. The Arab Palestinians knew how to object, protest, create lethal conditions and perform terrorist operations. But they did not demonstrate until 1988 that they had the slightest idea how to create a country and stand alone. Even today, the 1988 State of Palestine is not demonstrating that it can engage in the activities of a functional government. It cannot collect its own taxes, it cannot maintain peace and security or perform law enforcement functions on its own. It cannot engage in good faith and productive peace negotiations to settle disputes. It can only engage in Jihad.

The Palestinians never rejected a state. They rejected colonialism.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are trying to massage the actions of the Arab Palestinian to make it appear much more noble than what they are. Not only did the Arab Palestinians reject the "Arab State" (the Partition Plan) --- but they did it --- not because it was some colonial scheme, but because the Arab Palestinian wanted all --- (repeat) ALL --- the remaining territory to which the Mandate applied. It had nothing to do with colonialism.

The selfish Arab Palestinian, represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) Delegation indicated that the Arab "rejection" was ground on:

(a) The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize 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. ​

And this stance is repeated several times --- over the last half century. It is the Arab Palestinian position that the Allied Powers (under the League of Nations or the United Nations) did not have the authority to make disposition on the territories surrendered to it by the Ottoman Empire. And the Arab Palestinian, through the AHC and the Arab League states, work tirelessly to undermine the establishment of the Jewish Nation Home; a safe haven that could preserve and protect the Jewish People and their culture. It is substantially the same position the Arab Palestinian hold today:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.
2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim
3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.
4. Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice.
5. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.​

The Arab-Palestinian is so out of touch with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Article 1 of UN Charter), that it is totally incapable of entering into a good faith effort to settle disputes by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

There solution is Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did not want to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

And you should know that people in non self governing territories have the same rights as those livings in independent states.

The Palestinians never rejected a state. They rejected colonialism.

NO they rejected the rights of the Jews to show free determination and ability to govern themselves. But they waited until they had their cut of the land first before resorting to violence and terrorism to kill the Jews. As is usual you are refusing to allow the Jews the same rights as the arab muslims because of your anti-Semitism and Jew hatred.

Pfffft, what a load of crap.

Have you read the various charters of the arab muslims that all deny the Jews and Christians any free determination, human rights and the ability to set out their own lives. You think the arab muslim Palestinians are treated badly, well under them the Jews would be dead by now, the Christians driven out and the temple mount reduced to rubble along with the two carbuncles

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are trying to project the image of the Arab Palestinian as the virtual victim.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did not want to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

(COMMENT)

There were no colonial schemes in the sense you are suggesting. The Mandatory, through the tasking of the Allied Powers, was to provide advice, administration (executive and legislative), and assistance until such time as the Arab could stand alone (an Article 22 prerequisite). The Arab Palestinian was uncooperative and certainly did not follow the steps preparatory to independence. Thus they were left behind by their own choice (self-determination).

And you should know that people in non self governing territories have the same rights as those livings in independent states.

(COMMENT)

• (SUB TEXT QUESTION) Who gave the people of non-self governing territories this "right" beyond the self-determination of the Charter?
  • That would not be by chance the non-binding 1960'ish A/RES/15/1514(XV) would it --- (not in play at the time Israel declared independence pursuant to the directions it received from the UN)?

Having the "right" is much different than a people that know how to exercise that right and stand alone as a nation. It is a much different thing for a people not to know how to establish independence and so not use the right --- then it is --- for a people to be denied the right. The Arab Palestinians knew how to object, protest, create lethal conditions and perform terrorist operations. But they did not demonstrate until 1988 that they had the slightest idea how to create a country and stand alone. Even today, the 1988 State of Palestine is not demonstrating that it can engage in the activities of a functional government. It cannot collect its own taxes, it cannot maintain peace and security or perform law enforcement functions on its own. It cannot engage in good faith and productive peace negotiations to settle disputes. It can only engage in Jihad.

The Palestinians never rejected a state. They rejected colonialism.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are trying to massage the actions of the Arab Palestinian to make it appear much more noble than what they are. Not only did the Arab Palestinians reject the "Arab State" (the Partition Plan) --- but they did it --- not because it was some colonial scheme, but because the Arab Palestinian wanted all --- (repeat) ALL --- the remaining territory to which the Mandate applied. It had nothing to do with colonialism.

The selfish Arab Palestinian, represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) Delegation indicated that the Arab "rejection" was ground on:

(a) The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize 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. ​

And this stance is repeated several times --- over the last half century. It is the Arab Palestinian position that the Allied Powers (under the League of Nations or the United Nations) did not have the authority to make disposition on the territories surrendered to it by the Ottoman Empire. And the Arab Palestinian, through the AHC and the Arab League states, work tirelessly to undermine the establishment of the Jewish Nation Home; a safe haven that could preserve and protect the Jewish People and their culture. It is substantially the same position the Arab Palestinian hold today:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.
2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim
3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.
4. Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice.
5. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.​

The Arab-Palestinian is so out of touch with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Article 1 of UN Charter), that it is totally incapable of entering into a good faith effort to settle disputes by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

There solution is Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab-Palestinian is so out of touch with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Article 1 of UN Charter), that it is totally incapable of entering into a good faith effort to settle disputes by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.​

How so?

 

[Coyote]

When does a people become a "people" worthy of being recognized as such? Is it arbritrary depending on whether you approve of the group or not?

Before the events referenced in such a way as to try to justify various points of view, not after, and because the group identity arose naturally rather than through a product of cynical manipulation and deceit.

Every group begins somewhere and this group existed and lived there regardless of what you chose to call them then or now. They are real people.

Now, YOU certainly approve of a group that has elevated mass murder to a position of highest honor, which treats women as nothing but brood mares to produce as many potential killers as possible, and which invests it's resources into an enormous propaganda apparatus geared towards fooling useful idiots into supporting all this, but it isn't a matter of approval, but of reality.

Your talking about actions and broad brushing an entire group. You can disagree with particular behavior and fight to make changes (as many Muslim groups are doing in an attempt to reform Islam) - without denying an entire people their rights.

The reality of the situation is that "Palestinians" did not exist as a people at the time inevitably referenced by deceitful, cult-like followers such as yourself who have made the promotion of their agenda into their very Raison D' Etre.

The reality of the situation is that yes, they did - they were a group of people that consisted of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, Beduoins and other minorities that lived in the region called Palestine. That's fact. Whether they were called that or not is irrelevent. Everyone becomes a "people" at one time. There was no such thing as Israeli's prior to Israel. They are a people now. Are you going to deny them their identity?

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947. Arabs vacated the property upon which they squatted in 1947. Hostilities ensued after Arabs attacked Jews that resulted in hostile Arabs leaving.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.

The magic is in the semantics of people trying to deny other people their basic rights, rights those critics enjoy themselves.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are trying to project the image of the Arab Palestinian as the virtual victim.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did not want to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

(COMMENT)

There were no colonial schemes in the sense you are suggesting. The Mandatory, through the tasking of the Allied Powers, was to provide advice, administration (executive and legislative), and assistance until such time as the Arab could stand alone (an Article 22 prerequisite). The Arab Palestinian was uncooperative and certainly did not follow the steps preparatory to independence. Thus they were left behind by their own choice (self-determination).

And you should know that people in non self governing territories have the same rights as those livings in independent states.

(COMMENT)

• (SUB TEXT QUESTION) Who gave the people of non-self governing territories this "right" beyond the self-determination of the Charter?
  • That would not be by chance the non-binding 1960'ish A/RES/15/1514(XV) would it --- (not in play at the time Israel declared independence pursuant to the directions it received from the UN)?

Having the "right" is much different than a people that know how to exercise that right and stand alone as a nation. It is a much different thing for a people not to know how to establish independence and so not use the right --- then it is --- for a people to be denied the right. The Arab Palestinians knew how to object, protest, create lethal conditions and perform terrorist operations. But they did not demonstrate until 1988 that they had the slightest idea how to create a country and stand alone. Even today, the 1988 State of Palestine is not demonstrating that it can engage in the activities of a functional government. It cannot collect its own taxes, it cannot maintain peace and security or perform law enforcement functions on its own. It cannot engage in good faith and productive peace negotiations to settle disputes. It can only engage in Jihad.

The Palestinians never rejected a state. They rejected colonialism.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are trying to massage the actions of the Arab Palestinian to make it appear much more noble than what they are. Not only did the Arab Palestinians reject the "Arab State" (the Partition Plan) --- but they did it --- not because it was some colonial scheme, but because the Arab Palestinian wanted all --- (repeat) ALL --- the remaining territory to which the Mandate applied. It had nothing to do with colonialism.

The selfish Arab Palestinian, represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) Delegation indicated that the Arab "rejection" was ground on:

(a) The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize 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. ​

And this stance is repeated several times --- over the last half century. It is the Arab Palestinian position that the Allied Powers (under the League of Nations or the United Nations) did not have the authority to make disposition on the territories surrendered to it by the Ottoman Empire. And the Arab Palestinian, through the AHC and the Arab League states, work tirelessly to undermine the establishment of the Jewish Nation Home; a safe haven that could preserve and protect the Jewish People and their culture. It is substantially the same position the Arab Palestinian hold today:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.
2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim
3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.
4. Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice.
5. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.​

The Arab-Palestinian is so out of touch with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Article 1 of UN Charter), that it is totally incapable of entering into a good faith effort to settle disputes by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

There solution is Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

How is that different from anyone else?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well before the arab muslims started calling themselves Palestinians. At least 100 years before


And amongst that group were Jews who were given the chance to form a homeland and agreed. It seems that you are siding with the islamonazi stooges and Jew hating white supremacists in denying the Jews their human rights and wanting them to be stateless wandering bums so you can treat them like something you have stepped in.

Why is this, what have the Jews ever done to you to deserve such treatment ?

As to that last question, the answer is obvious. Jews represent everything she is not, as they are educated, accomplished, successful and innovative. It's much like the remedial kids picking on the brainiac in that envy has been sublimated and turned into hatred.

 

[Coyote]

I deliberately chose English regions, but "British" will do at a pinch to demonstrate the regional variations within one country. Historically we did have sperate kingdoms for many English regions and many do want regional autonomy, (a recent genetic survey has found that a Geordie is genetically different from a Cornishman, but thats a topic for another forum) not just te scots or the Welsh.

My point was that the same or something similar applies to Palestinians, Syrians, etc. While they were all Ottoman subjects, a Syrian could tell a Palestinian from a Bedouin by their appearance, cultural traits and dialect. Yet all of them were considered a homogenous group: "Arabs", by the Western colonial powers who drew arbitrary lines in the sand and created a country of "Syria", "Palestine", "Jordan", etc.

even Scotland voted against separation.

Palestinians were never a state or kingdom. It is simply a roman name given to three part of the gaza sinai. It was never an autonomous rule nor a people.
How is it similar? They were tribes, arabs, various other races but not palestinian by race, language, religion, culture or anything else. It is simply a foreign designation of name for the area, not an arab name. Till the mandate they never called themselves palestinians or call the land palestine. Even as a sanjak within the syria vilayet it was called jerusalem, beirut, damascus, zor, mount lebanon, safad, nablus. Not since the 16th century had there even been a gaza within syria.

Till the mandate they would never have called themselves palestinian or claimed to have been part of any place called palestine. It was not in their language.

So what? Palestine has been a geo-political entity since at least Herodotus, and it's inhabitants were Palestinians, regardless of what they called themselves or what others may called them. Kurds have never had a State or Kingdom, but no-one denies they are a "nation".

So when did the Syrians and Egyptians start calling themselves palestinians ?

When did the Syrians start calling themselves Syrian?
When did the Egyptians start calling themselves Egyptian?

Did the Souix have a border? A capital? A currency? A GDP?

They had the most important thing -- a sense of identity as a people.

"Palestinians" were simply made up as a propaganda tool against Jews and had no such identity until encouraged by the Egyptian Named Arafat to start calling themselves such.

The Palestinians formed an identity as a group of people who lived in that area - every group of people start out that way.

Well before the arab muslims started calling themselves Palestinians. At least 100 years before


And amongst that group were Jews who were given the chance to form a homeland and agreed. It seems that you are siding with the islamonazi stooges and Jew hating white supremacists in denying the Jews their human rights and wanting them to be stateless wandering bums so you can treat them like something you have stepped in.

Where did you come up with that? Where have I ever denied Jews their human rights or indicated I want them to be "stateless wandering bums"? Where?

I support Israel's right to exist. What I don't support is creating another wrong in order fix the old wrongs.

You have a habit of accusing anyone who even suggests that the Palestinians might have a just cause as being Jew hating white supremacists, or islamonazi's - because you can't see beyond black and white. If they don't agree, then they MUST be...blah blah blah.

Why is this, what have the Jews ever done to you to deserve such treatment ?

Where have I ever said they deserve such treatment?

Why do you lie?

 

[Coyote]

Well before the arab muslims started calling themselves Palestinians. At least 100 years before


And amongst that group were Jews who were given the chance to form a homeland and agreed. It seems that you are siding with the islamonazi stooges and Jew hating white supremacists in denying the Jews their human rights and wanting them to be stateless wandering bums so you can treat them like something you have stepped in.

Why is this, what have the Jews ever done to you to deserve such treatment ?

As to that last question, the answer is obvious. Jews represent everything she is not, as they are educated, accomplished, successful and innovative. It's much like the remedial kids picking on the brainiac in that envy has been sublimated and turned into hatred.

I think the obvious answer is hidden in your own bitterness and hate. You can not see beyond the end of your nose or acknowledge that a situation is far more complex than a simple black and white, good vs. evil scenario. The real world seldom works that way and if you think you are some sort of "super hero" trumpeting the rights of "good" over "evil" then you are sadly misguided.

The Jews have a homeland, and they deserve to keep it.
The Palestinians are stateless and under occupation - they deserve a homeland. This has been going on long enough.

Should Israel be allowed to keep it's all of it's conquered territories and deny either a homeland or citizenship or independence to the people that originally lived there - alongside the Jews - before there was Israel? If you say yes, then frankly - what about Russia and the Ukraine? Should Russia be allowed to continue gobbling up the Ukraine? You, and others, seem to think that rights belong to only those you deem "good" or "worthy" or share your particular values.

 

[Coyote]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems to me there is a lot of pro-Israeli propaganda going around as well with constant refrains of David vs Goliath victimhood and if one disagrees with that narrative, one is labeled an anti-semite.

 

[montelatici]

When does a people become a "people" worthy of being recognized as such? Is it arbritrary depending on whether you approve of the group or not?

Before the events referenced in such a way as to try to justify various points of view, not after, and because the group identity arose naturally rather than through a product of cynical manipulation and deceit. Now, YOU certainly approve of a group that has elevated mass murder to a position of highest honor, which treats women as nothing but brood mares to produce as many potential killers as possible, and which invests it's resources into an enormous propaganda apparatus geared towards fooling useful idiots into supporting all this, but it isn't a matter of approval, but of reality. The reality of the situation is that "Palestinians" did not exist as a people at the time inevitably referenced by deceitful, cult-like followers such as yourself who have made the promotion of their agenda into their very Raison D' Etre.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947. Arabs vacated the property upon which they squatted in 1947. Hostilities ensued after Arabs attacked Jews that resulted in hostile Arabs leaving.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.

The Palestinian people existed before the Mandate and there is documented proof that the Palestinian people considered themselves thus officially in correspondence to with the Mandatory (Britain) at the outset of the Mandate. You are full of crap:

"PALESTINE.
​

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​

​

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration......."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922

Arabs from neighboring countries intervened to attempt to prevent the ethnic cleansing and murder of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine, by the Jews.

 

[montelatici]

Why should any people accept a colonial sc

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are trying to project the image of the Arab Palestinian as the virtual victim.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think this is accurate at all.

Arabs attacked the fledgling state in 1947.

Now, 70 years later, its as if by magic that these Arabs are being cast as a people that did not actually exist at the time.​

Propaganda does not have to make sense for some people to believe it.

(COMMENT)

The territorial Arab of 1947 were Citizens of Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine) as defined by the Palestine Order in Council; that is, for the purposes of this discussion --- the Arabs being discussed were Citizens of "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies," either as:

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

They were citizens to the legal entity (defined by the Order in Council) but not a sovereign state and not self-governing or with autonomous governing functionality. The Arab Palestinians, having declined to form the precursor institutions on more than three occasions, by declining to cooperation in developing precursors to self-governing institution, discarded the right to consulted on all matters relating to immigration, Arab civil and religious rights, on which it was recognized that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration.” Even in 1947, the Arab Palestinian the Arab Higher Committee refused to cooperate to be an advisor to the identified successor government; not being denied a voice --- but instead again declining to be an active voice.

The nature of the Arab Palestinian is much different than you are attempting to portray them. That is the difference --- the propaganda is the attmept to cast them as the perpetual victim --- when the reality is they short themselves in the foot.

Just my thought... (Don't decline to participate --- and them complain you didn't get what you wanted.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did not want to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.

(COMMENT)

There were no colonial schemes in the sense you are suggesting. The Mandatory, through the tasking of the Allied Powers, was to provide advice, administration (executive and legislative), and assistance until such time as the Arab could stand alone (an Article 22 prerequisite). The Arab Palestinian was uncooperative and certainly did not follow the steps preparatory to independence. Thus they were left behind by their own choice (self-determination).

And you should know that people in non self governing territories have the same rights as those livings in independent states.

(COMMENT)

• (SUB TEXT QUESTION) Who gave the people of non-self governing territories this "right" beyond the self-determination of the Charter?
  • That would not be by chance the non-binding 1960'ish A/RES/15/1514(XV) would it --- (not in play at the time Israel declared independence pursuant to the directions it received from the UN)?

Having the "right" is much different than a people that know how to exercise that right and stand alone as a nation. It is a much different thing for a people not to know how to establish independence and so not use the right --- then it is --- for a people to be denied the right. The Arab Palestinians knew how to object, protest, create lethal conditions and perform terrorist operations. But they did not demonstrate until 1988 that they had the slightest idea how to create a country and stand alone. Even today, the 1988 State of Palestine is not demonstrating that it can engage in the activities of a functional government. It cannot collect its own taxes, it cannot maintain peace and security or perform law enforcement functions on its own. It cannot engage in good faith and productive peace negotiations to settle disputes. It can only engage in Jihad.

The Palestinians never rejected a state. They rejected colonialism.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are trying to massage the actions of the Arab Palestinian to make it appear much more noble than what they are. Not only did the Arab Palestinians reject the "Arab State" (the Partition Plan) --- but they did it --- not because it was some colonial scheme, but because the Arab Palestinian wanted all --- (repeat) ALL --- the remaining territory to which the Mandate applied. It had nothing to do with colonialism.

The selfish Arab Palestinian, represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) Delegation indicated that the Arab "rejection" was ground on:

(a) The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize 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. ​

And this stance is repeated several times --- over the last half century. It is the Arab Palestinian position that the Allied Powers (under the League of Nations or the United Nations) did not have the authority to make disposition on the territories surrendered to it by the Ottoman Empire. And the Arab Palestinian, through the AHC and the Arab League states, work tirelessly to undermine the establishment of the Jewish Nation Home; a safe haven that could preserve and protect the Jewish People and their culture. It is substantially the same position the Arab Palestinian hold today:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.
2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim
3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.
4. Liberation of Palestine is a national duty; it is the responsibility of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, it is also a humanitarian responsibility in accordance with the requirements of truth and justice.
5. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.​

The Arab-Palestinian is so out of touch with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Article 1 of UN Charter), that it is totally incapable of entering into a good faith effort to settle disputes by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

There solution is Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why should any people accept a colonial scheme designed to settle people from another continent on land they had been living on for thousands of years?