I will not Bow!

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The answer was there, you just did not understand it. Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.

The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?

(ANSWER)

While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders (Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali) was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" (the Natural Law) for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State. The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal (acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz), but went well beyond.

OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.

(COMMENT)

The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words (but what it is); and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it (if you wish) in a meaningful and tangible way. Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot. To argue whether or not you had it and when --- is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, could not recognize it for it was, and could not successfully implement it.

Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction. And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it. The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful (although made a valiant attempt).

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination. The real question is, can they actually make a go of it. To date, all they have been able to do is complain, protest, commit hostile acts, and create a an unproductive environment. They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities. Having the right to self-determination is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation. The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The answer was there, you just did not understand it. Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.

(ANSWER)

While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders (Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali) was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" (the Natural Law) for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State. The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal (acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz), but went well beyond.

OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.

(COMMENT)

The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words (but what it is); and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it (if you wish) in a meaningful and tangible way. Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot. To argue whether or not you had it and when is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, and could not successfully implement it.

Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction. And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it. The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful (although made a valiant attempt).

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination. The real question is, can they actually make a go of it. To date, all they have been able to do is complain, create a hostile environment. They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities. Having the right to self-determination is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation. The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.

Now if that doesn't take the prize for idiocy.

 

[aris2chat]

Of course that is not true.

Sure it is. Rocco has explained it to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over with links. But you refuse to believe it. Your problem, not mine.

A world power can do anything it wants, it can give land away to any entity it wants. From that point of view there is nothing illegal about the establishment of Israel.

Whether it is just or not or if it will be demographically sustainable for the long term is another matter. The British Government gave Cecil Rhodes a charter for his British South Africa Company (BSAC) to rule, police, and make new treaties and concessions from the Limpopo River to the great lakes of Central Africa, which he established as Rhodesia. Was it just, probably not, was it sustainable in the long term, no.

If you have a problem with giving african nations their independence, the desolation of the empires, take it to the Africa forum.

 

[montelatici]

Sure it is. Rocco has explained it to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over with links. But you refuse to believe it. Your problem, not mine.

A world power can do anything it wants, it can give land away to any entity it wants. From that point of view there is nothing illegal about the establishment of Israel.

Whether it is just or not or if it will be demographically sustainable for the long term is another matter. The British Government gave Cecil Rhodes a charter for his British South Africa Company (BSAC) to rule, police, and make new treaties and concessions from the Limpopo River to the great lakes of Central Africa, which he established as Rhodesia. Was it just, probably not, was it sustainable in the long term, no.

If you have a problem with giving african nations their independence, the desolation of the empires, take it to the Africa forum.

You have a reading comprehension issue. I see.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The answer was there, you just did not understand it. Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.

(ANSWER)

While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders (Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali) was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" (the Natural Law) for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State. The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal (acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz), but went well beyond.

OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.

(COMMENT)

The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words (but what it is); and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it (if you wish) in a meaningful and tangible way. Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot. To argue whether or not you had it and when --- is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, could not recognize it for it was, and could not successfully implement it.

Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction. And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it. The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful (although made a valiant attempt).

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination. The real question is, can they actually make a go of it. To date, all they have been able to do is complain, protest, commit hostile acts, and create a an unproductive environment. They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities. Having the right to self-determination is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation. The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are dancing around the question.

 

[MrMax]

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.

The problem is that you're a hypocrite. It's ok for you to make up some arbitrary rule to keep the land you took off the indians by force, but it's not ok for others to keep the land they won in a war when they were attacked.

Keep arguing about meaningless pieces of paper, I know it makes you feel better. Do you need someone to come and hold your hand too?

 

[Phoenall]

Before you use that "name", remember this...

..."Conquer by Conquest" was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.

Yes it was as the concept was written into the LoN charter and was International law. That is why the land became mandated and not given outright.

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

But not the arab muslim migrants that did not own any land. The Jews were to be the recipients of what is today Israel, Palestine and Jordan. Agreed with the arab leaders at the time, until the grand mufti decided to stick his nose in.

 

[Phoenall]

It's a morally bankrupt and indefensible position. Now you know.

PS Israel wasn't formed until '48, WWII ended in '45.

PPS The first international organization which the Israeli government joined was the International Wheat Council, established as part of Point Four Program in early 1949. Since 11 May 1949, the State of Israel is a member the United Nations.

Yes, we've all seen the argument...

Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...

Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...

"And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.

We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.

We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.

You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.

After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.

But not until we've gotten our share.

Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."

I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.

"We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.

We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?

We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."

or

"Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."

Now look at how racist and corrupt the country is under black rule. It is about on a par with most Islamic nations for racism, religious intolerance and brutality. So it seems that the blacks and muslims are not yet ready to be civilised.

 

[montelatici]

Yes, we've all seen the argument...

Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...

Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...

"And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.

We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.

We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.

You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.

After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.

But not until we've gotten our share.

Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."

I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.

"We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.

We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?

We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."

or

"Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."

Now look at how racist and corrupt the country is under black rule. It is about on a par with most Islamic nations for racism, religious intolerance and brutality. So it seems that the blacks and muslims are not yet ready to be civilised.

Come to southeast DC and make those claims about blacks Mr. Racist. You are a credit to the pro-Israel community, that's for sure.

 

[Phoenall]

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.

Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?

Because that was International law at the time and the arab leaders had already agreed to this course of action. The proviso was that any non Jew that wanted to live in the new nation of Israel could do so as full Isreali citizens, but they had to denounce all violence against the Jews.
So you see once again the law at the time proves you wrong and shows you have no actual intelligence regarding the history of Palestine.

How do you feel about the many caliphs that acted as the UN for muslims granting the muslims the right to take by force of arms and terrorism the many nations of North Africa and Europe displacing the local inhabitants in the process.

 

[Phoenall]

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.

WRONG as you have been shown time and time again. The land was given to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Israel by the legal land owners of the time.

Unless you have a link to an International treaty signed by the rulers of Palestine denying the mandate the right to govern the land and people.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The answer was there, you just did not understand it. Just as the southern Arab Syrians (AKA Arab Palestinians) didn't understand it back then.

OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.

(COMMENT)

The precursor to the right of self-determination is to understand that it is more than just words (but what it is); and the ability to both recognize it when you have it, and to practically implement it (if you wish) in a meaningful and tangible way. Just to say you have it is not enough; not by a long shot. To argue whether or not you had it and when --- is a clear demonstration that the Arab Palestinian did not understand it, could not recognize it for it was, and could not successfully implement it.

Both the Emir and the Grand Mufti understood this distinction. And each, in their own way, made attempt to implement it. The Emir Faisal was successful, while Haj Amin al-Husseini was unsuccessful (although made a valiant attempt).

Yes, the Arab Palestinian has the right to self-determination. The real question is, can they actually make a go of it. To date, all they have been able to do is complain, protest, commit hostile acts, and create a an unproductive environment. They have not been able to focus on domestic nation building activities. Having the right to self-determination is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation. The Occupation is merely and excuse to cover the lack of domestic progress.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are dancing around the question.

And you, Tinmore are not seeing the answer you want, which doesn't exist.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.

Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?

Because that was International law at the time and the arab leaders had already agreed to this course of action. The proviso was that any non Jew that wanted to live in the new nation of Israel could do so as full Isreali citizens, but they had to denounce all violence against the Jews.
So you see once again the law at the time proves you wrong and shows you have no actual intelligence regarding the history of Palestine.

How do you feel about the many caliphs that acted as the UN for muslims granting the muslims the right to take by force of arms and terrorism the many nations of North Africa and Europe displacing the local inhabitants in the process.

Do you have a link that says that?

 

[Hossfly]

Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.

Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?

Because that was International law at the time and the arab leaders had already agreed to this course of action. The proviso was that any non Jew that wanted to live in the new nation of Israel could do so as full Isreali citizens, but they had to denounce all violence against the Jews.
So you see once again the law at the time proves you wrong and shows you have no actual intelligence regarding the history of Palestine.

How do you feel about the many caliphs that acted as the UN for muslims granting the muslims the right to take by force of arms and terrorism the many nations of North Africa and Europe displacing the local inhabitants in the process.

Do you have a link that says that?

No he doesn't. I ate it.

 

[Phoenall]

The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.

When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.

Of course that is not true.

So then who held the legal right to the land under International law of that time. The mandate was ipso fact the legal land owner and the arab leaders had agreed to the partitioning of the land for the help given to the allies during WW1. It was the events of WW2 that led to the grand mufti stirring up trouble and telling the other arab leaders that the land was arab muslim and should never be given to the Jews.

No doubt you will say that this is not true as well ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

Certainly NOT!

You are dancing around the question.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian can be given all the rights and the tools, laws, and guidance that go with them. But if they don't have the were with all to fit it all together, then it is like they have nothing at all.

I can give to a telescope, and with it --- the capability to see Saturn and its rings. I can give you the coordinates (for a given date and time). But if you don't have the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to set it up, and align it in the right direction, having the telescope (the capability) means nothing; you are still not going to make visual acquisition.​

Just saying the words, means nothing. The reality is, you have to have the KSAs, to combine with the motivation and initiative to make it come together.

The Arab Palestinian had all the capability (and more) it needed to make another Peaceful, prosperous, and productive Arab State. But, not having the KSAs, they threw it all away; as if they never had it at all. They chose a different path, something the Arab Palestinian understood, --- they chose "conflict."

And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.

Now if that doesn't take the prize for idiocy.

(COMMENT)

So, you are saying that no nation in the world, under occupation, can become prosperous and peaceful nation. That occupation is an impediment to a successful outcome.

That is foolish. Just in the last century, both Japan and Germany were occupied by the Allied Powers. And both are among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth; largely due to their own work and fortitude.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

Certainly NOT!

You are dancing around the question.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian can be given all the rights and the tools, laws, and guidance that go with them. But if they don't have the were with all to fit it all together, then it is like they have nothing at all.

I can give to a telescope, and with it --- the capability to see Saturn and its rings. I can give you the coordinates (for a given date and time). But if you don't have the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to set it up, and align it in the right direction, having the telescope (the capability) means nothing; you are still not going to make visual acquisition.​

Just saying the words, means nothing. The reality is, you have to have the KSAs, to combine with the motivation and initiative to make it come together.

The Arab Palestinian had all the capability (and more) it needed to make another Peaceful, prosperous, and productive Arab State. But, not having the KSAs, they threw it all away; as if they never had it at all. They chose a different path, something the Arab Palestinian understood, --- they chose "conflict."

And the Israeli Occupation does not prevent the Arab Palestinian from building a prosperous and peaceful nation.

Now if that doesn't take the prize for idiocy.

(COMMENT)

So, you are saying that no nation in the world, under occupation, can become prosperous and peaceful nation. That occupation is an impediment to a successful outcome.

That is foolish. Just in the last century, both Japan and Germany were occupied by the Allied Powers. And both are among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth; largely due to their own work and fortitude.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still dancing.

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;

The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?

 

[aris2chat]

Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.

Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?

Because that was International law at the time and the arab leaders had already agreed to this course of action. The proviso was that any non Jew that wanted to live in the new nation of Israel could do so as full Isreali citizens, but they had to denounce all violence against the Jews.
So you see once again the law at the time proves you wrong and shows you have no actual intelligence regarding the history of Palestine.

How do you feel about the many caliphs that acted as the UN for muslims granting the muslims the right to take by force of arms and terrorism the many nations of North Africa and Europe displacing the local inhabitants in the process.

Do you have a link that says that?

Learn Hebrew, find a job, work for several years....it is not a matter of just wanting to become an Israeli. You can be denied. But yes, non-jews, not involved in any terrorism, can become Israelis.

Any country can deny an application for citizenship.

 

[Phoenall]

i Jews like arab immigrated.

Europeans immigrated. The local population are/were predominately the same people that have always lived in Palestine. They were once Jews, Samaritans etc. Most converted to Christianity when Constantine became a Christian and Christianity became the state religion of the (Eastern) Roman Empire. After the Arab conquests most converted to Islam.

"Arab", as you know, is a cultural and linguistic denomination, not a racial or ethnic denomination. The only ethnic/racial Arabs are the people from the Arabian peninsula. A Tunisian is culturally an Arab, but racially and ethnically he/she is Berber, Phoenician, etc.

According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy, the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews. McCarthy estimates the non-Jewish population of Palestine at 452,789 in 1882, 737,389 in 1914, 725,507 in 1922, 880,746 in 1931 and 1,339,763 in 1946.

1. . 7th century. Palestine is under Bizantium rule. The majority of the population are Christians and Jews. Muslims are not found, as islam only appeared a couple of years ago. Arabs from the Arabic Desert invade Palestine in 634. The number of the troops fluctuated between 20,000 and 40,000 soldiers. After the conquest, the peasants, traders, women , craftsmen moved from Arabia Desert to the new conquered territories. However, Christians and Jews remain the absolute majority until the 1012, when Caliph Al Hakim in his edict orders the stubborn Christians and Jews either "embrace Islam"- or leave his dominions. The majoriy of the Christians and Jews refused - and were expelled. New wave of the immigrants from Arabia flew to the vacant land and entered into the vacant homes of the expelled Christians and Jews. Some years later, AlHakim cancelled his edict. A part of the Jews and Christians returned to Palestine - but of course, they did not get their properties back.

2. Arabs did not rule long in Palestine. Just some 300 years later, the Crusaders defeated them. Some 150 years later, the Turks ended what the Crusaders started: the Arab rule in Palestine came to the end. The Turkish era in Palestine began. The Ottoman Empire ruled over Palestine almost 600 years. The Turks did not like the idea of Palestine being Arabic and put quite serious restrictions on the Arab immigration to Palestine. They prefered to bring the Muslims from Turkey and from another parts of the Ottoman Empire. The result was that in 1917, when the British troops of the Gen. Allenby entered Pallestine, there were more than 500,000 MUSLIMS - but only 5,000 Arabs. Palestine at the beginning of the XXth century was Islamic- but not Arabic. The number of the Jews at that moment was 83,000. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks left and the massive Arab immigration to Pallestine started immediately. Now, it was already ARAB peasants, workers, officials, women , craftsmen, traders who flew to Palestine where there was a lot of free land and where, besides, the new job opprtunities appeared due to the acitivities of the Brits who started to build the new railroad, the new sea port in Heifa, and the new factories all over.

3. British Mandate. The total number of the Arabs who immigrated to Palestine during the British Mandate was over 500,000. The total number of the Jewish immigrants at the same period was 390,000.
The British Administration put restrictions on the Jewish immigration to Palestine, while allowing Arabs to enter Palestine freely. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. (John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, (London, 1930), p. 126.).

The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”( Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 291).

The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Palestine Royal Commission Report, p. 242).

The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) stating that “the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.” By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.

In spite of all this, in Jerusalem the Jews were the total and absolute majority and in other big cities they were close to it. Arabs mainly lived in the agricultural areas.

The final population of Palestine in 1948 was 538,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Muslims of whom more than 90% were Arab immigrants from the neighbouring Arab countries.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

Certainly NOT!

You are dancing around the question.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian can be given all the rights and the tools, laws, and guidance that go with them. But if they don't have the were with all to fit it all together, then it is like they have nothing at all.

I can give to a telescope, and with it --- the capability to see Saturn and its rings. I can give you the coordinates (for a given date and time). But if you don't have the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to set it up, and align it in the right direction, having the telescope (the capability) means nothing; you are still not going to make visual acquisition.​

Just saying the words, means nothing. The reality is, you have to have the KSAs, to combine with the motivation and initiative to make it come together.

The Arab Palestinian had all the capability (and more) it needed to make another Peaceful, prosperous, and productive Arab State. But, not having the KSAs, they threw it all away; as if they never had it at all. They chose a different path, something the Arab Palestinian understood, --- they chose "conflict."


(COMMENT)

So, you are saying that no nation in the world, under occupation, can become prosperous and peaceful nation. That occupation is an impediment to a successful outcome.

That is foolish. Just in the last century, both Japan and Germany were occupied by the Allied Powers. And both are among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on Earth; largely due to their own work and fortitude.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still dancing.

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;

The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?

I understood how Rocco answered your question. Maybe you need to work on your comprehension issues?