"Free Palestine

[Challenger]

Not quite. Your post fails to explain the reasons the Palestinian Muslim majority rejected these attempts and also omits this section from your own source:

"71. Meanwhile the Administration was preparing for a renewed attempt to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine. Elections were held in all the municipalities following the enactment of a new Municipal Corporations Ordinance in January , 1934. At the end of 1935, the High Commissioner communicated to the Jewish and Arab leaders proposals for the creation of a Legislative Council...

72. This project was rejected as unacceptable by the Zionists. The Arabs, although critical of its details, were ready to discuss it..."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Ultimately, the Zionists were happy to accept any measure that furthered their agenda while unsurprisingly the Palestinian majority rejected such measures, and vice versa. Palestinian Muslims chose their own path to self government, the fact it did not necessarily adhere to institutions that Britain and the Western powers wanted or envisaged is irrelevant. Did they make bad decisions? With hindsight, yes they did, but at the time it was touch and go that the British would abandon Palestine in 1938-39; had they done so we might well have a peaceful and stable Palestine and a less radicalised Middle East in general. But that's just speculation.

>>“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”<<

Many arabs stayed and now live as Israelis. Most of those that left did so at arab urging. Arabs created the refugee problem rather than find a solution or relocated the refugees to land the jews of the region were forced out of.

The Mandatory failed on all counts and there is no evidence that the native Palestinian population left at Arab urging, other than the oft quoted situation at Haifa which was the exception, rather than the rule. Given the ethnic cleansing by the Zionists started before the declaration of the state of Israel, they cannot claim the Arabs created the refugee problem.

Nor is there any evidence that the Jews physically evicted 750,000 arab muslims, not when there are interviews with them were they state they were told to go by the arab armies

Oh, there's plenty of evidence for the Zionist colonial militias evicting the native population of Palestine, best catalogued in this book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Amazon.co.uk Ilan Pappe 9781851685554 Books but that's one of many.

Is that the best you can do some left wing hypocrite that hates his own people. How about first hand testimony from an arab muslim himself ?

Refugee - Arab states told Arabs to leave Israel in 1948 war - YouTube

Not the best I can do, just the best comprehensive and scholarly catalogue written by a respected academic who is hated by the Zionist Right for telling the truth about the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Zionists in 1948.

Professor Ilan Papp - Arab and Islamic Studies - University of Exeter

As for video soundbites, they don't back your assertions, especially the one translated by Palestine Media Watch, that beacon of objectivity.

 

[Challenger]

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…​

Otranto is in Italy, not Spain. That's what threw me, but that's all you can expect from Phoney, he makes it up as he goes along.

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

Lets see if I can make this easy enough for you to understand.

1) 5000 people hacked to death in Spain by the muslims

2) dismembered bodies thrown in a pit all jumbled up

3) nothing to distinguish the bones religion ( no dna testing and no religion written on the bones )

4) so the Christians who build the churches cant say Jew throw them back in the hole.

5) see how stupid I have just made you look, and how you slipped in some Jew hatred and Anti Semitism.

So how do YOU know there were any Jewish people present?

 

[Phoenall]

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

Jewish National Home​

What does that mean?

Same thing as the arab national home, Syrian national home, Iraqi national home and American national home. The homeland of the people who live there. The arab muslims had been given 5 national homes taking up 99.9% of Palestine as agreed with the British prior to WW1.

Syran and Iraqi's are different peoples...actually collections of different peoples. That would be like saying we should give put Germans, Italians and British into one and call it "Eurpean national home".

Did I say any different, or is it your Jew hatred coming out again. No as they are distinct nationalities, so have their own national homes ( nations/states/countries). But arabs see themselves as one nationality as proven by the 1948 war of independence when 5 arab countries came together under arab nationalism and invaded Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

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…​

Otranto is in Italy, not Spain. That's what threw me, but that's all you can expect from Phoney, he makes it up as he goes along.

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

Lets see if I can make this easy enough for you to understand.

1) 5000 people hacked to death in Spain by the muslims

2) dismembered bodies thrown in a pit all jumbled up

3) nothing to distinguish the bones religion ( no dna testing and no religion written on the bones )

4) so the Christians who build the churches cant say Jew throw them back in the hole.

5) see how stupid I have just made you look, and how you slipped in some Jew hatred and Anti Semitism.

So how do YOU know there were any Jewish people present?

Documentary evidence of the massacres by surviving Jews and Christians, are you that stupid that you think there were no proofs at the time of the massacres. Much like the mass graves being found in Iraq and Nigeria at the moment that are found to contain mixed up bodies.

 

[Coyote]

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

Jewish National Home​

What does that mean?

Same thing as the arab national home, Syrian national home, Iraqi national home and American national home. The homeland of the people who live there. The arab muslims had been given 5 national homes taking up 99.9% of Palestine as agreed with the British prior to WW1.

Syran and Iraqi's are different peoples...actually collections of different peoples. That would be like saying we should give put Germans, Italians and British into one and call it "Eurpean national home".

Did I say any different, or is it your Jew hatred coming out again. No as they are distinct nationalities, so have their own national homes ( nations/states/countries). But arabs see themselves as one nationality as proven by the 1948 war of independence when 5 arab countries came together under arab nationalism and invaded Israel.

What Jew hatred? You have yet to post a link. I've repeatedly said I support Israel's right to exist. Get over yourself. Your claim states that "arab muslims" yada yada and you then you talk about an arab national home and a blah blah blah - totally contradicting yourself. Rights and nations aren't measured by how many each religion "gets".

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No... That would be wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

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

(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.

(COMMENT)

Ownership and sovereignty are not related in most cases.

I can own land in Canada, it doesn't affect the sovereignty; still Canadian Sovereignty.

A Canadian can own land in the US. It doesn't effect sovereignty; still American Sovereignty.

Just because the land is inside a specific sovereignty, does not mean that sovereignty owns it. Ownership does not generally affect the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home. This left the arab muslims and Christians with many options, from staying where they were as full citizens of the Jewish national home ( some took this option and are now living in Israel as full citizens ). They could relocate to trans Jordan and receive a small bounty to help them move and set up home, or they could relocate to any of the other nations created under the LoN Mandate system, again with a small bounty to assist in the move and to set up home. The last option was to take up arms and start a war because they followed the teachings of their religion. The last option is the one chosen by the majority of the arab muslims, and if the LoN knew then what we know now they would have torn up the various mandates and placed garrisons inside those nations to put down any terrorism and violence. Removing the Mandate principles and taking full control of the land as they could under International law at that time.

As you say the illegal arab muslim migrants do not have any rights, but the legally invited Jews do.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home.​

How about providing a link to that.

Mandate for palestine

 

[Coyote]

Otranto is in Italy, not Spain. That's what threw me, but that's all you can expect from Phoney, he makes it up as he goes along.

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

Lets see if I can make this easy enough for you to understand.

1) 5000 people hacked to death in Spain by the muslims

2) dismembered bodies thrown in a pit all jumbled up

3) nothing to distinguish the bones religion ( no dna testing and no religion written on the bones )

4) so the Christians who build the churches cant say Jew throw them back in the hole.

5) see how stupid I have just made you look, and how you slipped in some Jew hatred and Anti Semitism.

So how do YOU know there were any Jewish people present?

Documentary evidence of the massacres by surviving Jews and Christians, are you that stupid that you think there were no proofs at the time of the massacres. Much like the mass graves being found in Iraq and Nigeria at the moment that are found to contain mixed up bodies.

Please provide evidence then, that Jewish bones were included in those bone churches. Frankly - you didn't even get the country right, what makes this claim any more credible? Only one church - when I googled it - had bones from an Islamic conflict.

 

[Challenger]

Otranto is in Italy, not Spain. That's what threw me, but that's all you can expect from Phoney, he makes it up as he goes along.

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

Lets see if I can make this easy enough for you to understand.

1) 5000 people hacked to death in Spain by the muslims

2) dismembered bodies thrown in a pit all jumbled up

3) nothing to distinguish the bones religion ( no dna testing and no religion written on the bones )

4) so the Christians who build the churches cant say Jew throw them back in the hole.

5) see how stupid I have just made you look, and how you slipped in some Jew hatred and Anti Semitism.

So how do YOU know there were any Jewish people present?

Documentary evidence of the massacres by surviving Jews and Christians, are you that stupid that you think there were no proofs at the time of the massacres. Much like the mass graves being found in Iraq and Nigeria at the moment that are found to contain mixed up bodies.

LINK!

 

[Challenger]

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

Lets see if I can make this easy enough for you to understand.

1) 5000 people hacked to death in Spain by the muslims

2) dismembered bodies thrown in a pit all jumbled up

3) nothing to distinguish the bones religion ( no dna testing and no religion written on the bones )

4) so the Christians who build the churches cant say Jew throw them back in the hole.

5) see how stupid I have just made you look, and how you slipped in some Jew hatred and Anti Semitism.

So how do YOU know there were any Jewish people present?

Documentary evidence of the massacres by surviving Jews and Christians, are you that stupid that you think there were no proofs at the time of the massacres. Much like the mass graves being found in Iraq and Nigeria at the moment that are found to contain mixed up bodies.

Please provide evidence then, that Jewish bones were included in those bone churches. Frankly - you didn't even get the country right, what makes this claim any more credible? Only one church - when I googled it - had bones from an Islamic conflict.

Is that the one in Otranto?

"On August 12, 800 citizens were taken to the hill of Minerva, now called the Hill of the Martyrs, and beheaded because they refused to renounce their Catholic faith. Their remains were taken to the cathedral and the skulls preserved in the altar piece as a prominent reminder of these 800 martyrs."

 

[Coyote]

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…​

Otranto is in Italy, not Spain. That's what threw me, but that's all you can expect from Phoney, he makes it up as he goes along.

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

Lets see if I can make this easy enough for you to understand.

1) 5000 people hacked to death in Spain by the muslims

2) dismembered bodies thrown in a pit all jumbled up

3) nothing to distinguish the bones religion ( no dna testing and no religion written on the bones )

4) so the Christians who build the churches cant say Jew throw them back in the hole.

5) see how stupid I have just made you look, and how you slipped in some Jew hatred and Anti Semitism.

How exactly is it anti-semitism to point out that the Catholics did not like Jews? They certainly didn't treat them well but if you call that "liking" then whatever floats your boat dude.

 

[RoshanNair]

Muslims, please grow a pair and "end the occupation" yourselves. Stop whining to any tom, dick, and harry at the UN to come and liberate your precious Palestinians. History attests that the Arabs originally conquered Palestine from the Byzantines, so what right have you to piss and moan about the Zionists doing the same to you 1300 years later?

 

[Phoenall]

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

Jewish National Home​

What does that mean?

Same thing as the arab national home, Syrian national home, Iraqi national home and American national home. The homeland of the people who live there. The arab muslims had been given 5 national homes taking up 99.9% of Palestine as agreed with the British prior to WW1.

Syran and Iraqi's are different peoples...actually collections of different peoples. That would be like saying we should give put Germans, Italians and British into one and call it "Eurpean national home".

Did I say any different, or is it your Jew hatred coming out again. No as they are distinct nationalities, so have their own national homes ( nations/states/countries). But arabs see themselves as one nationality as proven by the 1948 war of independence when 5 arab countries came together under arab nationalism and invaded Israel.

What Jew hatred? You have yet to post a link. I've repeatedly said I support Israel's right to exist. Get over yourself. Your claim states that "arab muslims" yada yada and you then you talk about an arab national home and a blah blah blah - totally contradicting yourself. Rights and nations aren't measured by how many each religion "gets".

Yet demonise and deride them at every opportunity, making claims based on islamonazi sources about the alleged atrocities committed. Then bully other posters who give a differing POV and try and belittle them until the rest of team Palestine joins in and supports your false claims. Don't forget countries are not necessarily nations, as the same nationality can live in more than 1 country. Just look at the French who spread across into Spain and Belgium. The British are spread across England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Not every nation is a federation like the US, or how Russia was until it split into separate nations

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No... That would be wrong.

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.

(COMMENT)

Ownership and sovereignty are not related in most cases.

I can own land in Canada, it doesn't affect the sovereignty; still Canadian Sovereignty.

A Canadian can own land in the US. It doesn't effect sovereignty; still American Sovereignty.

Just because the land is inside a specific sovereignty, does not mean that sovereignty owns it. Ownership does not generally affect the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home. This left the arab muslims and Christians with many options, from staying where they were as full citizens of the Jewish national home ( some took this option and are now living in Israel as full citizens ). They could relocate to trans Jordan and receive a small bounty to help them move and set up home, or they could relocate to any of the other nations created under the LoN Mandate system, again with a small bounty to assist in the move and to set up home. The last option was to take up arms and start a war because they followed the teachings of their religion. The last option is the one chosen by the majority of the arab muslims, and if the LoN knew then what we know now they would have torn up the various mandates and placed garrisons inside those nations to put down any terrorism and violence. Removing the Mandate principles and taking full control of the land as they could under International law at that time.

As you say the illegal arab muslim migrants do not have any rights, but the legally invited Jews do.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home.​

How about providing a link to that.

Mandate for palestine

Nice duck. Where does it say what you said?

 

[Phoenall]

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…​

Otranto is in Italy, not Spain. That's what threw me, but that's all you can expect from Phoney, he makes it up as he goes along.

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

Lets see if I can make this easy enough for you to understand.

1) 5000 people hacked to death in Spain by the muslims

2) dismembered bodies thrown in a pit all jumbled up

3) nothing to distinguish the bones religion ( no dna testing and no religion written on the bones )

4) so the Christians who build the churches cant say Jew throw them back in the hole.

5) see how stupid I have just made you look, and how you slipped in some Jew hatred and Anti Semitism.

How exactly is it anti-semitism to point out that the Catholics did not like Jews? They certainly didn't treat them well but if you call that "liking" then whatever floats your boat dude.

The Jew hatred was in your snide comment about them not including Jewish bones without thinking about how you would say that these bones are Jewish.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No... That would be wrong.

(COMMENT)

Ownership and sovereignty are not related in most cases.

I can own land in Canada, it doesn't affect the sovereignty; still Canadian Sovereignty.

A Canadian can own land in the US. It doesn't effect sovereignty; still American Sovereignty.

Just because the land is inside a specific sovereignty, does not mean that sovereignty owns it. Ownership does not generally affect the sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home. This left the arab muslims and Christians with many options, from staying where they were as full citizens of the Jewish national home ( some took this option and are now living in Israel as full citizens ). They could relocate to trans Jordan and receive a small bounty to help them move and set up home, or they could relocate to any of the other nations created under the LoN Mandate system, again with a small bounty to assist in the move and to set up home. The last option was to take up arms and start a war because they followed the teachings of their religion. The last option is the one chosen by the majority of the arab muslims, and if the LoN knew then what we know now they would have torn up the various mandates and placed garrisons inside those nations to put down any terrorism and violence. Removing the Mandate principles and taking full control of the land as they could under International law at that time.

As you say the illegal arab muslim migrants do not have any rights, but the legally invited Jews do.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home.​

How about providing a link to that.

Mandate for palestine

Nice duck. Where dies it say what you said?

How is it a duck I have given you the link many times so it should be easy enough to find. The mandate for Palestine contains the details so why don't you look.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If this is all you found to place an objection with, we must be close to an agreement.

In point of fact, other than Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, there is not one single international law that supports specifically “unilateral secessions.”

This does not apply to the Palestinians at all. This only applies to groups of people wanting to break away from a state.

(REFERENCE)

While that is the more narrow view of "secession," the real meaning is much broader: Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, military alliance or especially a political entity. Threats of secession can also be a strategy for achieving more limited goals.

(COMMENT)

I tend to think that the three principles the Palestinians have latched onto (outside the use of force) are much to do about nothing, in terms of applicability:

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

The reason that the Arab Palestinians are subject to occupation and security containment is because they pose a threat to Israel:

• The Arab Palestinians have denied Israel the "territorial integrity" through assault, terrorism and conventional rocket fire. Israel is a member of the UN and entitled to defend itself.
• The Arab Palestinian will never recognize the validity of the partition plan adopted by the General Assembly; and consider that any attempt by the Jewish people to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory (the territory to which the British Mandate formerly applied) as an act of aggression. The further denies the right to self determination as an applicable concept. And it denies the State of Israel the right to independence and sovereignty.
• The Arab Palestinian sees Palestine as Arab Territory 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, and do not recognize the legitimacy of "Israel" in any part of Palestine. This nullifies the right to territorial integrity.

If these principles do not apply to Israel, formed pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence as established by the General Assembly, then they cannot be either inalienable or universal.

Excerpts from the Churchill White Paper of 1922:

• Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

• That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

---
There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab Palestinian, given a relaxed security environment, will not rearm and reinitiate an insurgency and terrorist campaign against Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home. This left the arab muslims and Christians with many options, from staying where they were as full citizens of the Jewish national home ( some took this option and are now living in Israel as full citizens ). They could relocate to trans Jordan and receive a small bounty to help them move and set up home, or they could relocate to any of the other nations created under the LoN Mandate system, again with a small bounty to assist in the move and to set up home. The last option was to take up arms and start a war because they followed the teachings of their religion. The last option is the one chosen by the majority of the arab muslims, and if the LoN knew then what we know now they would have torn up the various mandates and placed garrisons inside those nations to put down any terrorism and violence. Removing the Mandate principles and taking full control of the land as they could under International law at that time.

As you say the illegal arab muslim migrants do not have any rights, but the legally invited Jews do.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home.​

How about providing a link to that.

Mandate for palestine

Nice duck. Where dies it say what you said?

How is it a duck I have given you the link many times so it should be easy enough to find. The mandate for Palestine contains the details so why don't you look.

Because your link does not say what you said.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Good post.

The theory of popular sovereignty drives customary international law. It is the people who are sovereign. Governments are sovereign as extensions of the people. governments derive their legitimacy from the will of the people.

Look at the standard list of the peoples rights. They are:

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​

Who has these rights? The tenets of a state tell us. A state has a permanent population and a defined territory. The people of the place have these rights. The people from another place do not.

Territorial integrity is important. It is reiterated in several places. Acts of aggression are illegal. Acquiring territory through war is illegal. Annexing occupied territory is illegal.

There is no question as to who "owns" land.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home. This left the arab muslims and Christians with many options, from staying where they were as full citizens of the Jewish national home ( some took this option and are now living in Israel as full citizens ). They could relocate to trans Jordan and receive a small bounty to help them move and set up home, or they could relocate to any of the other nations created under the LoN Mandate system, again with a small bounty to assist in the move and to set up home. The last option was to take up arms and start a war because they followed the teachings of their religion. The last option is the one chosen by the majority of the arab muslims, and if the LoN knew then what we know now they would have torn up the various mandates and placed garrisons inside those nations to put down any terrorism and violence. Removing the Mandate principles and taking full control of the land as they could under International law at that time.

As you say the illegal arab muslim migrants do not have any rights, but the legally invited Jews do.

The provision was made in the Mandate for Palestine when the LoN created trans Jordan as the arab muslims national home.​

How about providing a link to that.

Mandate for palestine

Nice duck. Where dies it say what you said?

How is it a duck I have given you the link many times so it should be easy enough to find. The mandate for Palestine contains the details so why don't you look.

Because your link does not say what you said.

 

[Phoenall]

>>“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”<<

Many arabs stayed and now live as Israelis. Most of those that left did so at arab urging. Arabs created the refugee problem rather than find a solution or relocated the refugees to land the jews of the region were forced out of.

The Mandatory failed on all counts and there is no evidence that the native Palestinian population left at Arab urging, other than the oft quoted situation at Haifa which was the exception, rather than the rule. Given the ethnic cleansing by the Zionists started before the declaration of the state of Israel, they cannot claim the Arabs created the refugee problem.

Nor is there any evidence that the Jews physically evicted 750,000 arab muslims, not when there are interviews with them were they state they were told to go by the arab armies

Oh, there's plenty of evidence for the Zionist colonial militias evicting the native population of Palestine, best catalogued in this book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Amazon.co.uk Ilan Pappe 9781851685554 Books but that's one of many.

Is that the best you can do some left wing hypocrite that hates his own people. How about first hand testimony from an arab muslim himself ?

Refugee - Arab states told Arabs to leave Israel in 1948 war - YouTube

Not the best I can do, just the best comprehensive and scholarly catalogue written by a respected academic who is hated by the Zionist Right for telling the truth about the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Zionists in 1948.

Professor Ilan Papp - Arab and Islamic Studies - University of Exeter

As for video soundbites, they don't back your assertions, especially the one translated by Palestine Media Watch, that beacon of objectivity.

BULLCRAP he is as bad as Milliband the self serving Jewish neo Marxist that sold his soul to the devil, and sold his own brother down the river.

 

[Phoenall]

There are "bone" churches all over Europe if you look, just that there are many in Spain from the Islamic period using the bones of martyred |Christians and Jews.

There are many? Really? Can you provide some links? I never heard of them before so had to look them up and while there are a number throughout Europe, there was only one that held bones of those from an Islamic conflict and it was Catholics. You might want to remember that THEY did not like Jews either then. I seriously doubt they would include Jewish bones. Their attitude was more likely "good riddance".

Lets see if I can make this easy enough for you to understand.

1) 5000 people hacked to death in Spain by the muslims

2) dismembered bodies thrown in a pit all jumbled up

3) nothing to distinguish the bones religion ( no dna testing and no religion written on the bones )

4) so the Christians who build the churches cant say Jew throw them back in the hole.

5) see how stupid I have just made you look, and how you slipped in some Jew hatred and Anti Semitism.

So how do YOU know there were any Jewish people present?

Documentary evidence of the massacres by surviving Jews and Christians, are you that stupid that you think there were no proofs at the time of the massacres. Much like the mass graves being found in Iraq and Nigeria at the moment that are found to contain mixed up bodies.

Please provide evidence then, that Jewish bones were included in those bone churches. Frankly - you didn't even get the country right, what makes this claim any more credible? Only one church - when I googled it - had bones from an Islamic conflict.

So Spain was not ruled by the muslims now, according to you. And the muslims did not massacre many Christians and Jews in Spain according to you. And that they did their usual practice of throwing the dismembered bodies into mass graves, according to you.
Have you got it yet according to you the muslims did nothing, according to you the muslims are still doing nothing, according to you Jews were not killed at the same time as Christians. According to you the Jews do not have the right to a national home, according to you the arab muslims should be given Israel on a plate.

Now try looking for bone churches and see how many there are in reality, then look for muslim massacres in Spain. Or try Andalucía the Islamic name for Spain