I will not Bow!

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

Well, you have most of it wrong.

Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.

I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.

(COMMENT)

The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation. You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.

That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.

The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.

Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.

Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

There is a mistake here.

I did not justify or take a stand on the decisions made by the Allied Powers, or the League of Nations/UN. That is, I have not discussed whether the decision was virtuous, sound or valid.

In fact, I have consistently said that neither side has clean hands, and that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate claims.

Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?

Please explain your logic to justify these actions.

(COMMENT)

What I have consistently argued against is:

• The method and approach the Hostile Arab Palestinian and Arab League have adopted as a means of settlement.

• The asymmetric tactics, terrorism, threats, coercion and open conventional conflict launched against, the various parties to the conflict.

• The legal position that the Arab Palestinian exercised some measure of sovereignty over the territory in question and that they were deprived of their right to self-determination.

There is a a grave difference between the cultures, the one from which I hail and those of the Arab Middle East. There is, imbedded in this dispute, a moral imperative and responsibility to preserve cultural heritage of each society in distress; including that of the Jewish People. I do not expect the Arab Palestinian, of the Islamic Persuasion, to even feel the slightest obligation to render help and assistance in that preservation effort. I suspect that the Allied Powers at San Remo had a similar impression of the Arab Palestinian.

I do not think there is anything to be gained by expanding the exchange as to why, or why not, the Arab Palestinian has the morality is has. It is sufficient for me to know that the Arab Palestinian, as a society within the species, is sufficiently different and in opposition to the cause of preservation of a culture in distress; beyond the ability to take the lead in such an effort. Humanity has seen the lack of sense in cultural preservation before in similar Islamic dominated regions. This type of effort requires a much higher order of developmental thinking.

It is now being address on a different plane - a lower order of reactive autonomic response; a position of that adopted by the Palestinian Black Hand in the late 1920s (antagonistic and confrontational). We need not look back and ask why. We need only look at today - and to ask - what can be done to restore peace and preserve the culture?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

There is a mistake here.

I did not justify or take a stand on the decisions made by the Allied Powers, or the League of Nations/UN. That is, I have not discussed whether the decision was virtuous, sound or valid.

In fact, I have consistently said that neither side has clean hands, and that the Arab Palestinian has some legitimate claims.

Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?

Please explain your logic to justify these actions.

(COMMENT)

What I have consistently argued against is:

• The method and approach the Hostile Arab Palestinian and Arab League have adopted as a means of settlement.

• The asymmetric tactics, terrorism, threats, coercion and open conventional conflict launched against, the various parties to the conflict.

• The legal position that the Arab Palestinian exercised some measure of sovereignty over the territory in question and that they were deprived of their right to self-determination.

There is a a grave difference between the cultures, the one from which I hail and those of the Arab Middle East. There is, imbedded in this dispute, a moral imperative and responsibility to preserve cultural heritage of each society in distress; including that of the Jewish People. I do not expect the Arab Palestinian, of the Islamic Persuasion, to even feel the slightest obligation to render help and assistance in that preservation effort. I suspect that the Allied Powers at San Remo had a similar impression of the Arab Palestinian.
I do not think there is anything to be gained by expanding the exchange as to why, or why not, the Arab Palestinian has the morality is has. It is sufficient for me to know that the Arab Palestinian, as a society within the species, is sufficiently different and in opposition to the cause of preservation of a culture in distress; beyond the ability to take the lead in such an effort. Humanity has seen the lack of sense in cultural preservation before in similar Islamic dominated regions. This type of effort requires a much higher order of developmental thinking.

It is now being address on a different plane - a lower order of reactive autonomic response; a position of that adopted by the Palestinian Black Hand in the late 1920s (antagonistic and confrontational). We need not look back and ask why. We need only look at today - and to ask - what can be done to restore peace and preserve the culture?

Most Respectfully,
R

Precisely the problem the Colonial chauvinism of the Europeans over the native Culture and its perceived inferiority as it is today...The real truth is that Arab Culture has long and distinguished roots which is the political glue that binds them...The Radical expression is the growing Jihadist movement. The Arab Spring is a result.

Its Israel's move land or peace.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.

Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.

Why don't we just run with that?

 

[toastman]

pbel, et al,

Well, you have most of it wrong.

I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.

(COMMENT)

The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation. You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.

That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.

The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.

Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.

Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.

There was no country for the Zionists to take over

The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?

 

[toastman]

Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.

Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.

Why don't we just run with that?

Why dont you tell us point by point how that wod work out.

 

[Kondor3]

Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.

Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.

Why don't we just run with that?

Why dont you tell us point by point how that wod work out.

I can't WAIT to hear THIS...

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

Well, you have most of it wrong.


(COMMENT)

The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation. You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.

That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.

The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.

Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.

Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.

There was no country for the Zionists to take over

The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?

Now all you have to do is convince millions of Palestinians that Palestine is not their country.

Good luck with that.

 

[Billo_Really]

There will never be a two state solution.

Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.

What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?

What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?

Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.

Because that's what Israel wants.

Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best

You consider choosing not to do business with someone a "threat"?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh yeah --- Right.

Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict.

Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law.

Why don't we just run with that?

(COMMENT)

Great Logic: Just let the Palestinian Human Rights Attorney & Professor decide! What are you crazy? They believe that terrorism is justifiable because they believe their cause is just. (Circular Logic)

The problem is that the destruction or devolution of the State of Israel, is very likely to start a cascade series of counterproductive events that nobody wants; except Arab Palestinians prone to suicidal outcomes.

There will be many that would agree that it is better to maintain the status quo then to set the conditions for the mutual destruction of the parties concerned, and allow the rise of another fanatical Islamic State in the middle of the Levant Gas Field. (Of course we don't expect the Palestinians to care about that.) There is a very high probability that the destruction or devolution of the State of Israel will be the catalyst that unleashes an uncontrollable series of events that will destabilize the entire region before the nation expires.​

However, there are very few analyst, at this time, that see such events, of this magnitude, even being a possibility in the near future. After all, the events that brought the State of Israel (The Jewish State) to realization were formulated by the International Community; and the ground conditions set by adversarial by the Arab States in political confrontation with the International Community.

There is always the chance for a peaceful solution, based on mutual sacrifice and compromise; but, only if there is a good faith effort put forth.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Well, you have most of it wrong.


(COMMENT)

The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation. You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.

That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is true. The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration and assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship. It was to set up a government shared by all of the citizens.

The Zionists, however, had a different plan. They wanted to pack Palestine with foreign settlers and take over the country.

Britain bowed to the pressure from the Zionists until the plan blew up in its face causing it to write the 1939 White Paper clarifying its goals. The Palestinian saw this as too little, too late. Britain could not put the toothpaste back in the tube. The Zionists were angry. They saw the White Paper as a backtrack on the terms of the mandate.

Everybody was shooting at each other so Britain decided to jump ship in the middle of the war it created. That war continues today.

There was no country for the Zionists to take over

The TERRITORY did not belong to the Palestinan Arabs, just because they owned land and lived there. So you're argument that the Zionists wanted to take over their country is a bunch of baloney and you know it. Why do you keep repeating this Palestinian lie?

You have got to be kidding...Just because there was no Nation called Palestine the people who lived in Palestine since 2-3 thousand years have been genetically proven to be the people who call themselves Palestinians today.

The Ottomans and Brits exercised an Occupier's Sovereignty by Arms...They had no deeds to the land...

This no country bit is one of the most insidious lies in this conflict. No one with half a brain buys into this convoluted logic!

 

[docmauser1]

Precisely the problem the Colonial chauvinism of the Europeans over the native Culture and its perceived inferiority as it is today...The real truth is that Arab Culture has long and distinguished roots which is the political glue that binds them...The Radical expression is the growing Jihadist movement. The Arab Spring is a result. Its Israel's move land or peace.

Indeed, Bassem Tibbi wouldn't have said that otherwise - "The dialogue is not proceeding well because of the two-facedness of most Muslim interlocutors on the one hand and the gullibility of well-meaning Western idealists on the other."

 

[docmauser1]

Everyone is in a quandary about how to end the conflict. Noura Erakat, professor if international law, says that the solution to the conflict is already laid out in international law. Why don't we just run with that?

Because the arab version of it states "What's mine - is mine, and what's yours is mine too.", of course.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (without the use of subterfuge).

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

(OBSERVATION)

The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document. A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.

Were was the U.N in 1812 to set in stone International Law that should have brought a halt to MASS MURDER. That is the difference but you are too steeped in your Jew hatred to understand this.

Ask yourself this would a wholly Jewish state be acceptable to you built on the same criteria that you are building your wholly muslim state. Will you accept the ethnic cleansing of the muslims and the destruction of all their religious sites. The enslavement of the young muslim girls for sexual pleasure. Because this is what you advocate with your wholly muslim state in Palestine against the wishes of the many people who live there.

 

[docmauser1]

There will never be a two state solution.

Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.

Indeed, palistanians decided against it on their own.

What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?

What has Israel done to allow the Pals to live peacefully?

Palistanians are proving to be incompatible with the concept, of course.

Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.

Because that's what Israel wants.

If one's willing to buy palistanian oils and gases, of course.

Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best

You consider choosing not to do business with someone a "threat"?

What "business" does that gay BDS have with Israel?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty. It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.

If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.

(COMMENT)

America has made its share of mistakes. We are not perfect. What can I say?

Most Respectfully,
R

The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.

And the Jews have been under attack by the Palestinians for 1400 years, and the whole world was a serious threat to them.

Britain was being forced out of Palestine by the HoAP and not being allowed to fulfil its original goals. The HoAP were MASS MURDERING Jews and Christians in an attempt at reducing their number before they could muster a force to take the land promised to them.

Very simple they target children and schools, they take their grievances out on non combatants as well. They use violence and WMD's to force a solution that no one wants, while using International aid money to MURDER and RAPE. Every picture, video and report shows acts of violence and aggression against anyone that gets in their way,. In fact they act worse than a pack of rabid dogs going so far as to mutilate the bodies of captured POW's and cannabilising them.
If the Jews were half as bad as the HoAP then they would have been utterly destroyed by the world by now.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty. It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.

If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.

(COMMENT)

America has made its share of mistakes. We are not perfect. What can I say?

Most Respectfully,
R

The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.

And the Jews have been under attack by the Palestinians for 1400 years, and the whole world was a serious threat to them.

Britain was being forced out of Palestine by the HoAP and not being allowed to fulfil its original goals. The HoAP were MASS MURDERING Jews and Christians in an attempt at reducing their number before they could muster a force to take the land promised to them.

Very simple they target children and schools, they take their grievances out on non combatants as well. They use violence and WMD's to force a solution that no one wants, while using International aid money to MURDER and RAPE. Every picture, video and report shows acts of violence and aggression against anyone that gets in their way,. In fact they act worse than a pack of rabid dogs going so far as to mutilate the bodies of captured POW's and cannabilising them.
If the Jews were half as bad as the HoAP then they would have been utterly destroyed by the world by now.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.

The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack. What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland. It is the way of the Arab.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.

(COMMENT)

I look at the past history of behaviors.

I take a reasonable man view.

Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel. And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.

The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.

I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong. Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R

Attacks are attacks. The excuses don't matter.

So why do you defend and support the attacks that are constantly coming from the HoAP while aggressively attacking the Israelis when they defend against such attacks. Because at the end of the day you can not find one attack instigated by Israel against the HoAP that was not in retaliation for terrorism

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.

The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack. What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland. It is the way of the Arab.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.

(COMMENT)

I look at the past history of behaviors.

I take a reasonable man view.

Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel. And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.

The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.

I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong. Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R

The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?

Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?

Please explain your logic to justify these actions.

Evidence and proof from an unbiased source that shows the MUSLIM hordes had owned the land for a millennia. At the most they owned it for 22 years way back in the 7c, and promptly lost it to the Crusaders. Then it passed into Ottoman control who owned it until 1919, when it changed hands to French and British ownership. The itinerant muslim farm workers owned nothing and moved about the land looking for work. The Jews actually owned land and they have title to the land so have a far greater right to have a homeland as promised in that area. The muslims were given 80% of Palestine initially and they still wanted more, so the British portioned the remainder into 2 parts and gave the muslims the lions share of 55% leaving the Jews with 45% of Palestine that is mostly desert. But being muslim the HoAP wanted everything and all their slaves back as well.

 

[Phoenall]

The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?

Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?

Please explain your logic to justify these actions.

Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.

I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.

Yet you are willing to see the MASS MURDER of Jews because you support and defend the HoAP terrorist methods. You blame the Jews for everything while ignoring the atrocities coming from the muslim terrorists