"Free Palestine

[aris2chat]

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

What "Cathederal of bones" in Spain?

9 of the Strangest Bone Churches of Europe BootsnAll

I have to admit...I find the concept downright creepy....

Halloween ride through the cathedral of bones? The city of bones? The cave of death?

or just a way of honoring their ancestors, like visiting a grave yard.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Yes --- I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The Arabs of Palestine not once participated in the active governance process of Palestine or helped to establish self-governing institutions - NOT ONCE (From 1922 to 1947).

Firstly Arab Palestinians did form part of the government of Palestine until it became obvious to them that the British were intent on enabling the Zionist Jewish immigrants to disposess them of their country. They refused to be willing participants in their own destruction. They attempted their own "war of independance" in 1936 which was brutally surpressed by the british aided by Zionist militias and death squads. By 1945 the top Palestinian civil and political leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile, so couldn't meaninfully "participate" in anything.

(OBSERVATION)

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

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

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

46. In response to a suggestion made by the Shaw Commission, the statement emphasized the passage in the White Paper of 1922 declaring that the Jewish Agency was not entitled, by its special status under the Mandate, to share in the government of Palestine. it added that

• • 
    “machinery must be provided to ensure that the essential interests of the non-Jewish sections of the Community should at the same time be fully safeguarded, and that adequate opportunity should be afforded for consultation with the Palestine Administration on matters affecting those interests.”

47. In the section of the White paper dealing with constitutional development, His majesty's Government stated their considered opinion

• • 
    “that the time has now come when the important question of the establishment of a measure of self-government in Palestine must, in the interests of the community as a whole, be taken in hand without further delay.”

SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

(COMMENT)

The "Jewish Agency," realizing that Article 6 of the Mandate only got their foot in the door, leaped at every opportunity that availed itself in the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine. On the hand --- the Arabs of Palestine, which opposed the Mandate and did not recognize the Mandate and its authority, rejected every opportunity to have an equal voice and express both ideas and concerns in the council --- and the administration --- equivalent to that of the Jewish Agency.

For the Jewish Agency, this positive effort paid-off in November (1930), when the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on the Sir John Hope-Simson’s estimates and subsequent controversy --- which appeared to be a reversal of policy in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr Weizmann on the 13 February 1931.

Again, from the perspective of the Mandatory, acts of terrorism committed by Jews ceased altogether with the outbreak of war, and the armed Arab bands melted away before the end of the year. The Jewish Agency called on the Jewish community to offer its full assistance to the mandatory Power, and similar appeals were made in the Arabic press. In the course of the war the Jews provided 27,000 recruits for the British services with a Jewish Brigade formed. As Farouk Qaddoumi (AKA: Abu al-Lutf, is Secretary-general of Fatah's central committee and PLO's political department) said in an interview (December 2013) when he removed any doubt over Arab support for Nazi Germany: "We supported the NAZI's in WWII."

The Arabs of Palestine did nothing to further their support toward self-government in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

According to what I read, there were no Jews involved in the death toll - they were 800 Catholics who refused to convert.

What you don't seem to realize is conversion to the faith du jour was a requirement of invading forces in that era - don't convert, then die.

Ah -- so THAT'S why you are nothing but a mouthpiece for Jihad. It's because their convert or die attitudes have been so well established all these years and so you are A OK with it. .

Thanks for clearing that one up.

Who said I was ok with it?

Work on your reading skills.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

Yes --- I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

The Arabs of Palestine not once participated in the active governance process of Palestine or helped to establish self-governing institutions - NOT ONCE (From 1922 to 1947).

Firstly Arab Palestinians did form part of the government of Palestine until it became obvious to them that the British were intent on enabling the Zionist Jewish immigrants to disposess them of their country. They refused to be willing participants in their own destruction. They attempted their own "war of independance" in 1936 which was brutally surpressed by the british aided by Zionist militias and death squads. By 1945 the top Palestinian civil and political leadership was either dead, in prison or in exile, so couldn't meaninfully "participate" in anything.

(OBSERVATION)

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

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

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

46. In response to a suggestion made by the Shaw Commission, the statement emphasized the passage in the White Paper of 1922 declaring that the Jewish Agency was not entitled, by its special status under the Mandate, to share in the government of Palestine. it added that

• • 
    “machinery must be provided to ensure that the essential interests of the non-Jewish sections of the Community should at the same time be fully safeguarded, and that adequate opportunity should be afforded for consultation with the Palestine Administration on matters affecting those interests.”

47. In the section of the White paper dealing with constitutional development, His majesty's Government stated their considered opinion

• • 
    “that the time has now come when the important question of the establishment of a measure of self-government in Palestine must, in the interests of the community as a whole, be taken in hand without further delay.”

SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

(COMMENT)

The "Jewish Agency," realizing that Article 6 of the Mandate only got their foot in the door, leaped at every opportunity that availed itself in the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine. On the hand --- the Arabs of Palestine, which opposed the Mandate and did not recognize the Mandate and its authority, rejected every opportunity to have an equal voice and express both ideas and concerns in the council --- and the administration --- equivalent to that of the Jewish Agency.

For the Jewish Agency, this positive effort paid-off in November (1930), when the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on the Sir John Hope-Simson’s estimates and subsequent controversy --- which appeared to be a reversal of policy in regards to the establishment of the Jewish National Home. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr Weizmann on the 13 February 1931.

Again, from the perspective of the Mandatory, acts of terrorism committed by Jews ceased altogether with the outbreak of war, and the armed Arab bands melted away before the end of the year. The Jewish Agency called on the Jewish community to offer its full assistance to the mandatory Power, and similar appeals were made in the Arabic press. In the course of the war the Jews provided 27,000 recruits for the British services with a Jewish Brigade formed. As Farouk Qaddoumi (AKA: Abu al-Lutf, is Secretary-general of Fatah's central committee and PLO's political department) said in an interview (December 2013) when he removed any doubt over Arab support for Nazi Germany: "We supported the NAZI's in WWII."

The Arabs of Palestine did nothing to further their support toward self-government in the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arabs of Palestine not once participated in the active governance process of Palestine or helped to establish self-governing institutions - NOT ONCE (From 1922 to 1947).​

Indeed, they did not want to legitimize the colonial project by taking any part in it.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to pull a fast one.

OK, you have defined Palestine's borders.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

(COMMENT)

None of the Nations created from the various Mandates, can meet that requirement. WHY (you ask)? Because self-determination is based on the action of the free population that exercises it. It is a much different thing than when the original territory was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire in 1920; or when the US gave the Philippines their independence; or when Alaska was purchased from Russia.

Just as the current State of Palestine has no formal international boundaries at all (no one inch) --- Israel has two sets of international boundaries (with Jordan and Egypt) and two demarcation lines pending peace negotiations (with Syria and Lebanon).

The question might be asked, what does the State of Palestine have?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to pull a fast one.

OK, you have defined Palestine's borders.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

(COMMENT)

None of the Nations created from the various Mandates, can meet that requirement. WHY (you ask)? Because self-determination is based on the action of the free population that exercises it. It is a much different thing than when the original territory was surrendered by the Ottoman Empire in 1920; or when the US gave the Philippines their independence; or when Alaska was purchased from Russia.

Just as the current State of Palestine has no formal international boundaries at all (no one inch) --- Israel has two sets of international boundaries (with Jordan and Egypt) and two demarcation lines pending peace negotiations (with Syria and Lebanon).

The question might be asked, what does the State of Palestine have?

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice deflection.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, give me a break. You can't ask for something that doesn't exist and then claim deflection. It is a fallacy (fallacious argument).

Nice deflection.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

(COMMENT)

It was not "given" ---

You are asking for something that is not part of self-determination process.

The territory described under the Partition Plan was declared independent under the right of self determination. And that was altered by the invasion of the Arab States. Thus by 1949, the territory controlled by Israel was determine sovereign through the war of independence against act of aggression in the Arab World.

BTW: No where does it say that the territory is exclusively Arab.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, give me a break. You can't ask for something that doesn't exist and then claim deflection. It is a fallacy (fallacious argument).

Nice deflection.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

(COMMENT)

It was not "given" ---

You are asking for something that is not part of self-determination process.

The territory described under the Partition Plan was declared independent under the right of self determination. And that was altered by the invasion of the Arab States. Thus by 1949, the territory controlled by Israel was determine sovereign through the war of independence against act of aggression in the Arab World.

BTW: No where does it say that the territory is exclusively Arab.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, Palestine belonged to the Palestinians who were Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Not the same Jews who came down from Europe to take over the country.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, give me a break. You can't ask for something that doesn't exist and then claim deflection. It is a fallacy (fallacious argument).

Nice deflection.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

(COMMENT)

It was not "given" ---

You are asking for something that is not part of self-determination process.

The territory described under the Partition Plan was declared independent under the right of self determination. And that was altered by the invasion of the Arab States. Thus by 1949, the territory controlled by Israel was determine sovereign through the war of independence against act of aggression in the Arab World.

BTW: No where does it say that the territory is exclusively Arab.

Most Respectfully,
R

OH, give me a break. You can't ask for something that doesn't exist and then claim deflection. It is a fallacy (fallacious argument).​

No it isn't. It is repeatedly said that the land was given to the Jews.

Who owned that land?

Where is the treaty ceding it to the Jews?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again you are mixing "Apples" and "Oranges."

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, give me a break. You can't ask for something that doesn't exist and then claim deflection. It is a fallacy (fallacious argument).

Nice deflection.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

(COMMENT)

It was not "given" ---

You are asking for something that is not part of self-determination process.

The territory described under the Partition Plan was declared independent under the right of self determination. And that was altered by the invasion of the Arab States. Thus by 1949, the territory controlled by Israel was determine sovereign through the war of independence against act of aggression in the Arab World.

BTW: No where does it say that the territory is exclusively Arab.

Most Respectfully,
R

OH, give me a break. You can't ask for something that doesn't exist and then claim deflection. It is a fallacy (fallacious argument).​

No it isn't. It is repeatedly said that the land was given to the Jews.

Who owned that land?

Where is the treaty ceding it to the Jews?

(COMMENT)

Ownership is a real estate concepts.

When you are talking about sovereignty --- ownership plays no part.

The treaties that establish the Israel-Egyptian border (Article II) and the Israel-Jordanian border (Article III) are a matter of record and covers 75% to 80% of the perimeter.

The Armistice Agreements between Israel-Lebanon and Israel-Syria are still in place because the war is not concluded. The are covered by Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)].

• 
  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
  
  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
  

The question as to who owns the land is irrelevant in the determination of sovereignty.

There is no entity that has either a treaty or armistice with the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again you are mixing "Apples" and "Oranges."

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, give me a break. You can't ask for something that doesn't exist and then claim deflection. It is a fallacy (fallacious argument).

Nice deflection.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

(COMMENT)

It was not "given" ---

You are asking for something that is not part of self-determination process.

The territory described under the Partition Plan was declared independent under the right of self determination. And that was altered by the invasion of the Arab States. Thus by 1949, the territory controlled by Israel was determine sovereign through the war of independence against act of aggression in the Arab World.

BTW: No where does it say that the territory is exclusively Arab.

Most Respectfully,
R

OH, give me a break. You can't ask for something that doesn't exist and then claim deflection. It is a fallacy (fallacious argument).​

No it isn't. It is repeatedly said that the land was given to the Jews.

Who owned that land?

Where is the treaty ceding it to the Jews?

(COMMENT)

Ownership is a real estate concepts.

When you are talking about sovereignty --- ownership plays no part.

The treaties that establish the Israel-Egyptian border (Article II) and the Israel-Jordanian border (Article III) are a matter of record and covers 75% to 80% of the perimeter.

The Armistice Agreements between Israel-Lebanon and Israel-Syria are still in place because the war is not concluded. The are covered by Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)].

• 
  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
  
  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

The question as to who owns the land is irrelevant in the determination of sovereignty.

There is no entity that has either a treaty or armistice with the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ownership is a real estate concepts.​

So the French do not own France?

That's good to know. Who does?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy --- you do like to twist the words around.

Ownership is a real estate concepts.​

So the French do not own France?

That's good to know. Who does?

(COMMENT)

Well -- I did not say that. I said it was irrelevant to the issue of Sovereignty.

The French People do not own all the property in the French Republic. For instance Embassies are owned by other countries and are sovereign unto other countries. The Hilton Hotel (2 Palce de la Defense) is partially owned by the French Businessman and is in sovereign French territory. The The European Space Agency (ESA ; French: Agence spatiale européenne, ASE) is a special intergovernmental activity, with multiple EU members with a vested interest; but still in French sovereignty. And of course the French interest in the ESA/ASE is own collectively by the French people as is most government property and real estate. (The French Republic nor the French People need not "own" the land for the land to be sovereign to France.) The US and Canada have treaties with Indian Tribes in which sovereignty is of special interest.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy --- you do like to twist the words around.

Ownership is a real estate concepts.​

So the French do not own France?

That's good to know. Who does?

(COMMENT)

Well -- I did not say that. I said it was irrelevant to the issue of Sovereignty.

The French People do not own all the property in the French Republic. For instance Embassies are owned by other countries and are sovereign unto other countries. The Hilton Hotel (2 Palce de la Defense) is partially owned by the French Businessman and is in sovereign French territory. The The European Space Agency (ESA ; French: Agence spatiale européenne, ASE) is a special intergovernmental activity, with multiple EU members with a vested interest; but still in French sovereignty. And of course the French interest in the ESA/ASE is own collectively by the French people as is most government property and real estate. (The French Republic nor the French People need not "own" the land for the land to be sovereign to France.) The US and Canada have treaties with Indian Tribes in which sovereignty is of special interest.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

verbal macrame

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy --- you do like to twist the words around.

Ownership is a real estate concepts.​

So the French do not own France?

That's good to know. Who does?

(COMMENT)

Well -- I did not say that. I said it was irrelevant to the issue of Sovereignty.

The French People do not own all the property in the French Republic. For instance Embassies are owned by other countries and are sovereign unto other countries. The Hilton Hotel (2 Palce de la Defense) is partially owned by the French Businessman and is in sovereign French territory. The The European Space Agency (ESA ; French: Agence spatiale européenne, ASE) is a special intergovernmental activity, with multiple EU members with a vested interest; but still in French sovereignty. And of course the French interest in the ESA/ASE is own collectively by the French people as is most government property and real estate. (The French Republic nor the French People need not "own" the land for the land to be sovereign to France.) The US and Canada have treaties with Indian Tribes in which sovereignty is of special interest.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

So much smoke to dodge an issue.

French sovereign territory is defined by the various treaties it has with the adjacent countries.​

And the French collectively "own" that. Nobody else.

 

[Phoenall]

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

What "Cathederal of bones" in Spain?

Never heard of it before but it piqued my curiousity....here's what I found:

Capela de Ossos Bone Chapel Atlas Obscura

9 of the Strangest Bone Churches of Europe BootsnAll

I think he's referring to this, but of course ommitting a bit of history:
The Skull Cathedral of Otranto Where the Bones of 800 Martyrs Adorn the Walls

The Ottoman Wars were motivated by territory gains and eradicating the Christian faith while spreading the Muslim one. Sound familiar? Just 200 hundred years earlier, the Christian Crusades (1095-1291) had led to an invasion of Northern Africa, with the crusaders’ goal to claim territory and eradicate the Muslim faith while spreading the Christian one. And the saga continues…​

And it keeps on happening with the muslims trying to take over the world in the name of islam. Do you want a BBC video posting of a muslim telling this to a British politician, or will you deny it because it is on you tube

 

[Phoenall]

It really doesn't matter if a group of Europeans may have decided to give land on another continent to other Europeans. The Berlin West Africa Conference in 1884-1885 gave the Congo to King Leopold of Belgium, big deal.

In any case, the LoN Mandate stated that " the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine....."

Since the rights and political status non-Jewish communities in Palestine were prejudiced (most non-Jews were ethnically cleansed), and the National Home was established as a state and not as a home within Palestine, the LoN Mandate is irrelevant to the current dispute.

You do not know what you are talking about, you just spout parrot fashion what your imam tells you. The LoN Mandate for Palestine is explicit in what it says, and your missing out crucial parts does not alter the facts. The LoN being the legal land owners gave the land to the Jews for their RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. The term in itself names it as a state or NATION. It also spells out that those non Jews living in the area an stay as full citizens or move to any of the other states or nations created under the Mandate. Not one of the Non Jews was prejudiced under the international laws of the time which did not mention politics or rights other than those already mentioned in the Mandate. Once again you try and cloud the issue by bringing in 2015 rights to a 1948 dispute that they do not cover. Unless of course you want to go back to the time of the Roman invasion and grant the land to the last extant group from that period. You can forget the arab muslims as they were invented in 627 C.E., and the Christians were not invented until the 4C C.E. when Rome collapsed. This leaves the Jews that have been proven to have DNA matches with ancient Jews and modern Jews from around the world.


And why did you miss the part of regarding the Jews rights that have been systematically denied by every islamonazi nation since 1948 ?

Where does the word "resurected", even spelled correctly, you ignoramus, ever appear in the Mandate? Come on bozo, find the word in the Mandate text. The Jews came from Europe as colonists/settlers/invaders (as it turned out). That's the one fact that no one can deny. You can't get it through your thick skull that the people in Palestine in the mid 19th century, before the Europeans began their colonization, were the same people that were always in Palestine. Most had been Christian before they converted to Islam. Before becoming Christians most followed the Roman state religion (which was the wise thing to do), before that they could have been of any pre-Christian faith Jewish included. But as in most areas of the world they remained mostly the same people. The general ethnic make up of the Irish population did not change drastically when they were Christianized nor after the English/Scottish colonization/setllement.

This exert from International law should shut you up for a short time as it shows the Jews were granted the land as far back as 1922 before the major illegal immigration of the arab muslims

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.

OK, you have defined Palestine's borders.

Now show where that land was given exclusively to the Jews.

Read the header as that says just that

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

No mention of any arab muslim nation of Palestine anywhere in the Mandate for Palestine

 

[Phoenall]

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?

I don't but you do when you deny your anti Semitism and Jew hatred. You constantly want to see Israel reduced to fighting for its existence by forcing them to give up their defence and move to non existent 1967 borders.

Good lord. Well, this should be easy to prove then right?

Please provide links to my "anti-semitism and Jew hatred". This should be easy for you. Shall I wait?

Look at your own posts in regards to the Jews and Israel. If I posted the same things about the arab muslims I would be banned from the board

Then it should be easy to provide examples of my posts to support your claim...come on Phoenal, I'm counting on you here

Done just yesterday by another poster, don't have the time or inclination to trawl for your posts

 

[Phoenall]

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

What "Cathederal of bones" in Spain?

The one adorned with the skeletons of the massacred Christians and Jews at the hands of the muslims

According to what I read, there were no Jews involved in the death toll - they were 800 Catholics who refused to convert.

What you don't seem to realize is conversion to the faith du jour was a requirement of invading forces in that era - don't convert, then die.

And is still practised by the muslims today, which is why we see so many horrific videos of beheadings at the hands of muslims.

 

[Coyote]

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

What "Cathederal of bones" in Spain?

The one adorned with the skeletons of the massacred Christians and Jews at the hands of the muslims

According to what I read, there were no Jews involved in the death toll - they were 800 Catholics who refused to convert.

What you don't seem to realize is conversion to the faith du jour was a requirement of invading forces in that era - don't convert, then die.

And is still practised by the muslims today, which is why we see so many horrific videos of beheadings at the hands of muslims.

By some.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Where have I ever said they deserve such treatment?

Why do you lie?

I don't but you do when you deny your anti Semitism and Jew hatred. You constantly want to see Israel reduced to fighting for its existence by forcing them to give up their defence and move to non existent 1967 borders.

Good lord. Well, this should be easy to prove then right?

Please provide links to my "anti-semitism and Jew hatred". This should be easy for you. Shall I wait?

Look at your own posts in regards to the Jews and Israel. If I posted the same things about the arab muslims I would be banned from the board

Then it should be easy to provide examples of my posts to support your claim...come on Phoenal, I'm counting on you here

Done just yesterday by another poster, don't have the time or inclination to trawl for your posts

Really? Where was that?