I will not Bow!

[MrMax]

Gee, it would begin to be possible to consider pbel's and tinny's accounts of ME history as not totally one-sided and prejudiced to the max, if only either of them would just once acknowledge the conspiracy by the Arab League nations to engage in ethnic cleansing of Jewish citizenry from their nations - stealing an area of land FOUR TIMES the size of Israel in the process.....

I am becoming more convinced with every post by each of them, that they only bother themselves to care about ethnic cleansing, land theft, abuse of *indigenous* populations and so on, when the purported 'aggressors' are likely to be Jews.

Their exclusive focus on wrongs purportedly *by* Jews - and the persistent 'invisbility' in their narrative of wrongs *inflicted* on Jews - is potent evidence of a considerable deep-seated bias in their view.

Not true!

I have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the Jews.

It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the Palestinian refugee problem.

If Palestinians would just surrender, they wouldn't be refugees.

 

[Hossfly]

Pbel and Tinmore simply cannot handle the fact that Jewish Immigration to Palestine was not an invasion , but part of the mandate, and that their immigration was not only encouraged, but fascilitated as well.
Without their 'Jewish invasion' lie, their entire bullshit agenda would crumble.

I wonder what Tinmore and the ilk imagine Palestine would look like today if the Jews hadn't come to their paradise?

We would not have endured 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Boston Marathon Bombings, the present mess in the ME.

What do the Jews have to do with any of those things except being victims in the Mid-East?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Gee, it would begin to be possible to consider pbel's and tinny's accounts of ME history as not totally one-sided and prejudiced to the max, if only either of them would just once acknowledge the conspiracy by the Arab League nations to engage in ethnic cleansing of Jewish citizenry from their nations - stealing an area of land FOUR TIMES the size of Israel in the process.....

I am becoming more convinced with every post by each of them, that they only bother themselves to care about ethnic cleansing, land theft, abuse of *indigenous* populations and so on, when the purported 'aggressors' are likely to be Jews.

Their exclusive focus on wrongs purportedly *by* Jews - and the persistent 'invisbility' in their narrative of wrongs *inflicted* on Jews - is potent evidence of a considerable deep-seated bias in their view.

Not true!

I have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the Jews.

It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the Palestinian refugee problem.

If Palestinians would just surrender, they wouldn't be refugees.

But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?

 

[MrMax]

Not true!

I have endorsed many times, openly and publicly, the right of return for the Jews.

It is, however, a totally separate and unrelated issue to the Palestinian refugee problem.

If Palestinians would just surrender, they wouldn't be refugees.

But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?

Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If Palestinians would just surrender, they wouldn't be refugees.

But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?

Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.

The Palestinians are not the surrender type. You have to admire them for that.

Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.

 

[toastman]

But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?

Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.

The Palestinians are not the surrender type. You have to admire them for that.

Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.

That's not going to happen. It's the Palestinians who were on the losing side of all the wars that they participated it.

Personally guys, I don't think there will ever be a solution with this conflict. Which of course, is way worse for the Palestinians than for Israel. Unless the civilians make peace with each other.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I wonder what Tinmore and the ilk imagine Palestine would look like today if the Jews hadn't come to their paradise?

We would not have endured 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Boston Marathon Bombings, the present mess in the ME.

What do the Jews have to do with any of those things except being victims in the Mid-East?

The Boston Marathon bombings? Come on! The terrorists' own uncle said that his nephews became terrorists because they were losers in Life and couldn't get themselves settled. He knew them better than you. I think I'll take his word for it.

 

[Kondor3]

But they would still not be allowed to go home so what would be the point?

Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.

The Palestinians are not the surrender type. You have to admire them for that...

Which is why they must be driven out rather than negotiated with.

...Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.

There we go with that Alternate Reality again.

 

[montelatici]

Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens. Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.

 

[Sally]

Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens. Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.

But many of your Muslim fellows want a Christian-free country, or haven't you been keeping up with the news?

 

[montelatici]

Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens. Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.

But many of your Muslim fellows want a Christian-free country, or haven't you been keeping up with the news?

Which country would that be?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; toastman; MrMax; et al,

Surrender is not an issue at all. It is not something for either side to consider.

Realizing and accepting their defeat is the first step to recovery.

The Palestinians are not the surrender type. You have to admire them for that.

Perhaps it is Israel who should surrender.

That's not going to happen. It's the Palestinians who were on the losing side of all the wars that they participated it.

Personally guys, I don't think there will ever be a solution with this conflict. Which of course, is way worse for the Palestinians than for Israel. Unless the civilians make peace with each other.

(COMMENT)

There any number of solution to the political equation at the center of the Israel-Palestinian dispute. Most of the solutions will deal with the negotiate compromise to the various civil claim settlements, restitutions for death and damages, reparations over terrorist actions and conflict costs, peaceful agreements in neighboring, and territorial resolutions. There is one solution that has no such outcomes; and that is the settlement through the erosion of time.

The current Palestinian position is one of an acquired solution through the erosion of time. That is, never contributing to the creation of an environment conducive to a negotiated settlement through peaceful means. This is the fundamental premise behind the concepts embedded in the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) philosophy:

• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.

The idea that "initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors," and "the Partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time," amplify the temporal nature of the Palestinian demands.

In this regard, it is the HoAP that seeks, as a matter of policy, a negative outcome to the current peace negotiations as a strategy of --- "by whatever means."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sally]

Well, Israel should try to drive them out to see what happens. Maybe they will end up with a Gentile free area.

But many of your Muslim fellows want a Christian-free country, or haven't you been keeping up with the news?

Which country would that be?

The president of the Sudan said he doesn't want Christians or any Black tribes in his country. Many of those who belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that they didn't want any more Christian Copts in their country. Let's face it. You are not interested in what is happening elsehwere. You are obsessed with demonizing Israel and the jews.

 

[montelatici]

No Rocky, there is no solution unless Israel, which has the power, decides to negotiate an equitable agreement. Since an equitable agreement will require the establishment of a sovreign state for non-Jews, there will never be such an agreement, as the Israelis in power want control over the whole of Palestine. If you haven't figured that out yet, you are a bit dim.

 

[montelatici]

But many of your Muslim fellows want a Christian-free country, or haven't you been keeping up with the news?

Which country would that be?

The president of the Sudan said he doesn't want Christians or any Black tribes in his country. Many of those who belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that they didn't want any more Christian Copts in their country. Let's face it. You are not interested in what is happening elsehwere. You are obsessed with demonizing Israel and the jews.

What does that have to do with Palestine? If Belgium decided it did not want any Germans in Belgium, what would that have to do with German speakers in Italy, e.g. Sud Tirol?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici; et al,

I guess I'm having a senior moment.

No Rocky, there is no solution unless Israel, which has the power, decides to negotiate an equitable agreement.

(COMMENT)

Who decides what is an "equitable agreement?" The key is reasonable compromise.

Since an equitable agreement will require the establishment of a sovereign state for non-Jews, there will never be such an agreement, as the Israelis in power want control over the whole of Palestine. If you haven't figured that out yet, you are a bit dim.

(COMMENT)

"The establishment of a sovereign state for non-Jews" was set forth by the General Assembly adoption of Resolution 181(II) in Part II Section "A" describing the "Arab State." However this was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) at the direction of the Arab League.

Maybe I'm confused.

Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

SOURCE: Palestine National Charter of 1968 Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine

It seems to me that it is the Palestinians that "want control over the whole of Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sally]

Which country would that be?

The president of the Sudan said he doesn't want Christians or any Black tribes in his country. Many of those who belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that they didn't want any more Christian Copts in their country. Let's face it. You are not interested in what is happening elsehwere. You are obsessed with demonizing Israel and the jews.

What does that have to do with Palestine? If Belgium decided it did not want any Germans in Belgium, what would that have to do with German speakers in Italy, e.g. Sud Tirol?

Give it a rest. Millions and millions of people have been displaced by war and have gotten on with their lives thousands of miles from their original homes. It is only the so-called Palestinians who are clamoring to be let back in, not only them but all their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren who weren't even born there. Even today, the U.S., Canada and Europe are taking in refugees from many different countries, and I don't think these modern-day refugees are clamoring to go back to their countries. Somehow they learn to make a life in their new country.

Articles: The Myth of the Palestinian 'Refugee Camps'

 

[Phoenall]

Pbel and Tinmore simply cannot handle the fact that Jewish Immigration to Palestine was not an invasion , but part of the mandate, and that their immigration was not only encouraged, but fascilitated as well.
Without their 'Jewish invasion' lie, their entire bullshit agenda would crumble.

I wonder what Tinmore and the ilk imagine Palestine would look like today if the Jews hadn't come to their paradise?

We would not have endured 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Boston Marathon Bombings, the present mess in the ME.

Your proof of that is what exactly, as those episodes were used as excuses by islam and were not the reasons behind the attacks. The only reason for the attacks was their religious beliefs and extremist views of the world

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "without external interference" clause doesn't apply to "outside her (Turkish) frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers" (Part III, Section XIII, Treaty of Sevres) or the territory "from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey" (Part I, Section I, Treaty of Lausanne); or "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921."

More smoke, Rocco?

The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

(COMMENT)

In the most lame sense, the Allied Powers, being alien to this described territory, which includes present day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, the 1988 Palestine, and Iraq, could be considered "foreigners" to the layman. But in reality, the Allied Powers assumed (in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations) all the sovereign powers forfeited by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Government having previously maintained sovereignty for 6 Centuries.

Key words: "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"

A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?

​

Indeed.

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

The Allied Powers were no more "foreigners" than the Sultan, or General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, first President of the Republic of Turkey.

(SIDEBAR)

Most Palestinian Land Owners, at the time of the Mandate of Palestine, owed their ownership to the 1858 land reform legislation, by the Ottoman Government.

Most Respectfully,
R

And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own


The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.

As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.

They had the chance of national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.

And if they had no homes then were do they go

Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.

 

[Phoenall]

Oh please Tinmore, you of all people can't accuse others of blowing smoke.
You seem to always use that term when you simple can't handle the truth that Rocco speaks, or not able to refute what he said.

So then, why did Rocco post a whole paragraph of irrelevance if not to confuse the issue?

It is only irrelevant to you because it destroys parts of your argument, which has been commented on before your claims of irrefutable evidence being irrelevant.