I will not Bow!

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your citation actually works against you. For it is out of context.

Indeed.

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a broader international context, the “Nationality law… showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”90 The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottoman people and other peoples. Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constitutes the formula by which a certain group of individuals are being legally connected and enabled to form the people element of the state.91

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

(OBSERVATION)

The "Wiki" entry you cite --- was cherry picked. You left out the part that says: "In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[42]"

Reference: File E. c. V. Docket VI. 2. Judgment No. 5 26 March 1925 The Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions - Greece v. Britain Judgment

Your claim is not valid or sound. It is a derivative interpretation of a Civil Contract dispute pertaining to contract concessions awarded, pre-mandate and post-mandate. The interpretation comes from:

• Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pp 650–652

Judgment #5 is specific to Jerusalem, and not the greater Mandate. While all five of the judgments are effected by political consequences, none of the judgments have an impact on the political questions relative to the Palestine Question.

I have provided you the links in question, and also include the links to the dissenting opinions relative to the courts decisions and judgments. In the 1920's and 1930's. For contract law purposes, given the number and types of mandates floating about, it was not uncommon for the court to refer to the Mandatory as the government of the territory; example, Government of Palestine meaning the UK as the Mandatory. And, in fact you will see that the judgments are written in colonial style, and not post-colonial style, referring to the "Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine."

The nuance of "successor state" is mentioned exactly four (4) times in the judgment. It is mention in citation #70, relative Ottoman subject status; citation #93, that the successor States are placed under an obligation to maintain the concessions referred to in Article 9 of the Protocol; citation #113, the principles which were to govern the situation of successor States as regards concessions granted by the Ottoman authorities; and citation #121, where the successor State must readapt the concessions to the new economic conditions. In each case (open for you to examine), the successor state is none other than the Mandatory (UK); not the indigenous people you claim as Palestinians.​

(COMMENT)

The attempt to use the ICJ Judgment #5 as a means to justify the existence of a state or nation called Palestine, in the context that that such a nation or state was in the hands of the indigenous population and had some measure of legality is ridiculous. Judgment #5 say that the successor government was the UK, and was obligated to make good the civil claims incurred by the Ottoman Empire for that territory.

We've discussed this before; several times.

I suggest you read a more objective view (mind you it is also an Arab view) from PediaView.com Open Source Encyclopedia - State of Palestine, which states in part:

Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين* Dawlat Filasṭīn), is a de jure sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that declared independence on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers. In 2012, it was granted observer status by the United Nations (UN).[15] It claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories,[16] and has designated Jerusalem as its capital.[ii][3][4] The areas claimed for the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, with the Palestinian Authority exercising socio-political administration since 1993 in limited areas.[7]

The 1974 Arab League summit designated the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" and reaffirmed "their right to establish an independent state of urgency."[17] The PLO held observer status at the United Nations as a "non-state entity" from 22 November 1974,[18][19] which entitled it to speak in the UN General Assembly but not to vote. After the Declaration of Independence, the UN General Assembly officially "acknowledged" the proclamation and voted to use the designation "Palestine" instead of "Palestine Liberation Organization" when referring to the Palestinian permanent observer.[20][21] In spite of this decision, the PLO did not participate at the UN in its capacity of the State of Palestine's government.[22]

But then there is a further explanation:

A legal analysis by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[179] The Court said that specific guarantees regarding freedom of movement and access to the Holy Sites contained in the Treaty of Berlin (1878) had been preserved under the terms of the Palestine Mandate and a chapter of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.[180] In a separate opinion, Judge Higgins argued that since United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967 to Resolution 1515 in 2003, the "key underlying requirements" have been that "Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State", with resolution 1515 endorsing the Road map for peace proposed by the Middle East Quartet, as a means to achieve these obligations through negotiation.[181]

• Note: UN Map #3243 is directly attached to the UNSC Resolution 242.

Simply put, the Palestinian history, as a State, opens with its Declaration of Independence in November 1988, and not before; especially when it comes time to pay the bills, look and see who does it. In the Judgment #5, the Government of Palestine was the UK and they were obligated.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Still waiting for one of you idiotic left wing losers to show that the land is not Jewish owned. You can claim all you like that the settlements are illegal but until you produce the proof then it is just RACIST JEW HATRED

 

[Phoenall]

You need a link to show that 'Palestine' was a territory and not a country in 1948 where the 'Palestinian' Arabs had no sovereignty?

Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Late Ottoman and British Mandate periods

In the middle of the 1st century of the Ottoman rule, i.e. 1550 AD, Bernard Lewis in a study of Ottoman registers of the early Ottoman Rule of Palestine reports:[58]


From the mass of detail in the registers, it is possible to extract something like a general picture of the economic life of the country in that period. Out of a total population of about 300,000 souls, between a fifth and a quarter lived in the six towns of Jerusalem, Gaza, Safed, Nablus, Ramle, and Hebron. The remainder consisted mainly of peasants, living in villages of varying size, and engaged in agriculture. Their main food-crops were wheat and barley in that order, supplemented by leguminous pulses, olives, fruit, and vegetables. In and around most of the towns there was a considerable number of vineyards, orchards, and vegetable gardens.

According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 was about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews[59]

Common Pbel, don't lower yourself to Tinmore's standards. There is Zero proof there

In 1850 Palestine took in all of trans Jordan and parts of Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, so by the time you remove the populations of those areas you find that the Palestine of today was about equal in numbers between Jews, Christians and muslims

 

[Phoenall]

Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics

Exactly. But Palestine was not a State then.

For ***** sakes, if Palestine was already a state. then what was the Partition plan for ??? It was to GIVE two peoples a state.

Please tell me then ,WHEN did Palestine' become a state.


BTW, I am in no way trying to de legitimize the inhabitants that have lived there, I am just giving you facts

State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity (such as an autonomous territory of a country).
You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.

And still no proof that Palestine was ever a state, because if it is ever declared a state then many areas around the world will be demanding their recognition of statehood. Quite a few in the USA that could cripple the economy by taking away the oil

 

[Phoenall]

Thankfully, that's not your decision to make.

Nor is it anyone elses but the Israelis and the muslims, and until the muslims wind their necks in they will lose

First off, this has nothing to do with muslims. This is a political and judicial issue, not a religious one. Second, eventually, if Israel doesn't decide, that "decision", will be made for them. And third, WTF does "wind their necks" mean?

It has everything to do with islam and the muslims when they are invoking their religion when they MASS MURDER. Who will make that decision and go against the fundamental right of the Israeli's to decide their own path. How would you feel if the UN decided to force the muslims into accepting something they don't want. Simply put it means stop being so aggressive and belligerent and getting in peoples faces.

That's not the issue. The issue is, "Who gave Israel the right to decide the Palestinian's path?"


Or turning it round who gave the HoAP muslims the right to decide the Jews path

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

Take the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, what did the HoaAP do to prove they could be peaceful after that.

Israel did not withdraw from Gaza! You actually expect people to be peaceful, when you are constantly shooting at them, while they fish and farm; while you deliberately murder their children; while you shoot out the lamps at the top of their light poles, after they made street improvements; while you violate their air space on a weekly basis; and after you cut out the dead, un-born baby, from the belly of a Palestinian mother you just killed and left the body in the street for all to see? You expect peace after all that? You're lucky I'm not there. If you did that to me, I would **** your country up!

Israel withdrew from gaza completely in August 2005, and even the HoAP agree that is the case. The HoAP increased the rate of attack without any provocation and taunted the Israeli's. All that you spout is just Islamic blood libels with no corroborative evidence available. But then you never let a lie get in the way of your NAZI JEW HATRED AND ANTI SEMITIC LIES do you

You cannot "completely withdraw", yet control over 80% of what goes into (and out of) the area. It's either one or the other. How old are you? You've got the logic of a 15 year old.

In August 2005 Israel completely withdrew from gaza and did not impose any restrictions or blockades until 2008, So were was the control of what went in or out other than that accorded to all nations under International law. How old are you and what grade did you stop your schooling, You sound like a 9 year old

Because that's what Israel wants.

Not Israel that is putting obstacles in the way is it, not Israel demanding pre conditions before even thinking about starting the peace talks. NOT ISREAL MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY WILL MASS MURDER ALL THE MUSLIMS .

You don't consider over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, "obstacles"? You don't consider the illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza, an "obstacle"? You don't consider a 47 year occupation of land that isn't yours, an "obstacle"?

No as they are security measures to stop terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, but you don't see that do you all you see is JOOOOOOS. The blockade is there to stop gun running and has saved the lives if thousands of innocent people. The HoAP would rather spend $1 million on building a tunnel so they could murder one Israeli child than spend $1 on providing a meal for a starving child in gaza. No occupation at all if you look at the facts, the land was given back to its rightful owners and refused, Israel was told to do what they wanted as Egypt and Jordan no longer wanted the bother of HoAP terrorism.

You're FOS! The roadblocks are in the West Bank, not between the West Bank and Israel. The blockade is there to punish Gazan's because Israel didn't like who they voted for in a democratic election. Like it's any of Israel's ******* business who the Pals vote for. And the tunnels are built to bring in the goods necessary to support a population of that size. BTW, those are the goods Israel is preventing with their blockade.


Yes goods like grad rockets, Kalashnikovs, grenades, H.E, Nitrates and other weapons to be used to target Israel children. But then you NAZI JEW HATING SHIT don't believe that the JOOOOS should be allowed to defend themselves from attack do you. Is it any of your business who the UK vote for, and if they want to withdraw from the EU, because your tame neo Marxist chimp thinks it is.


Well the pro terrorist on this board seem to think the boycott of Israeli goods is a threat that cant be ignored

You consider choosing not to buy your products (made from OPT sweat shops), "terrorism"? You consider people trying to symbolically enforce the law, "terrorists"?

Would you rather buy your goods from a Chinese neo Marxist sweat shop, or a Pakistani muslim sweat shop. Then complain when they don't last a month. For the record what Israeli goods are made in a sweat shop, now this should be entertaining as you scour the internet for muslim blood libels

Personally, I'd rather buy American.

Then stop attacking the Jews because you are a NAZI JEW HATER because they keep 30% of American defence workers in employment. And going on the quality of the US goods I have then you are easily pleased with trash quality. Who wants a car that wallows like a pregnant whale and handles like a piece of overcooked spaghetti

You can always tell when a pro terrorist is losing they resort to abusive profanity and outright lies.

Unfortunately, you haven't proven either, so don't change the subject!

Do I need to highlight all your LIES and PROFANITIES above, in the UK we say that this is a lack of education and is how low life's and crack whores talk.

 

[Phoenall]

State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State commonly refers to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity (such as a country) or sub-entity (such as an autonomous territory of a country).
You just don'6t get it...The fact that the Palestinians were a sub-set of Arab Culture made them a Nation or cultural group entitled to self determination...The Zionist propaganda to confuse and distort the truth is despicable and everyone knows it.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين* Dawlat Filasṭīn), is a de facto sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that declared independence on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers

There you go

So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.

The thing is the world did not recognise them as a state until that time, and it has not accepted its borders as they are in breach on the UN charter

 

[Phoenall]

So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.

SO when DID Palestine become a country?
You failed to answer this questions among others that I have asked

When they congregated sometime after 67 AD...Genetic testing has shown that 82% of todays Palestinians have roots from that time and are very closely related to the ancient Jews of this region.

So in 67AD the majority of the inhabitants were Jewish, does this mean that the land in now Jewish. Does it also mean that the muslims have no claim to the land as they were not to be invented for another 600 years or so.

 

[Phoenall]

When they congregated sometime after 67 AD...Genetic testing has shown that 82% of todays Palestinians have roots from that time and are very closely related to the ancient Jews of this region.

Link?

Palestinian people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times. A study of high-resolution haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool.[31] Since the time of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, religious conversions have resulted in Palestinians being predominantly Sunni Muslim by religious affiliation, though there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority of various Christian denominations

And not a muslim HoAP in sight, thanks for proving the present day filastins don't have a claim on the land

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

In some respects I have to agree.

Palestine, officially the State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين* Dawlat Filasṭīn), is a de facto sovereign state[13][14] in the Levant that declared independence on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers

There you go

So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.

(COMMENT)

In earlier times, this simplified idea was true. But in the context of the argument pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this issue is over "sovereignty" as we understand it to be from the 19th Century onward.

In any event, the credibility of the Palestinian is tainted. They, as an example, claim the modern code that territory cannot be acquired through armed force, yet, it was the Arab-Palestinian and the Arab League that tried to take the territory by armed force.

And by "taking territory," we all understand that to mean, the establishment of "sovereignty" and not ownership (a civil real-estate issue).

As we discussed in Post #517, there were "nonviolent" and "non-Hostile" ways to adjudicate claims the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) attempted to solve through conventional and asymmetric means.

And as we discussed in Post #502, the overall character of the Palestinian culture is not one in which we can reasonably expect:

To be sympathetic or understand of the original plight of the Jewish people, as the Allied Powers assessed the situation in the very early 20th Century.

It is not such, that we could ever expect they would not fall under the cult-like teachings of men such as the Syrian born Izz ad-Dīn al-Qassām, who was a Muslim preacher (of Black Hand fame) who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and migrated to Palestine to become one of their most revered martyrs in their fight against the Zionist (1920s/1930s); or Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who --- in 1948 attempted a grab for power by trying to establish an All Palestine Government, but did not have the full support of the Arab League, was reigned-in by them, and ultimately dissolved by the Arab League through President Nassar of Egypt; or Farhan al-Sa'di, a militant Sheik of the al-Qassam group, who led the 1936 Riots.

The Palestinian established their pattern of behavior early on in the struggle. Much of their argument is based on some form of justification for armed struggle; not on solutions through peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R

Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...

Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

In some respects I have to agree.

So they became a sovereign state in 1988...Sovereignty is not required to be a State, country or a nation as I posted earlier...Kosovo, American Indian nations are a good example.

(COMMENT)

In earlier times, this simplified idea was true. But in the context of the argument pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this issue is over "sovereignty" as we understand it to be from the 19th Century onward.

In any event, the credibility of the Palestinian is tainted. They, as an example, claim the modern code that territory cannot be acquired through armed force, yet, it was the Arab-Palestinian and the Arab League that tried to take the territory by armed force.

And by "taking territory," we all understand that to mean, the establishment of "sovereignty" and not ownership (a civil real-estate issue).

As we discussed in Post #517, there were "nonviolent" and "non-Hostile" ways to adjudicate claims the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) attempted to solve through conventional and asymmetric means.

And as we discussed in Post #502, the overall character of the Palestinian culture is not one in which we can reasonably expect:

To be sympathetic or understand of the original plight of the Jewish people, as the Allied Powers assessed the situation in the very early 20th Century.

It is not such, that we could ever expect they would not fall under the cult-like teachings of men such as the Syrian born Izz ad-Dīn al-Qassām, who was a Muslim preacher (of Black Hand fame) who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and migrated to Palestine to become one of their most revered martyrs in their fight against the Zionist (1920s/1930s); or Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who --- in 1948 attempted a grab for power by trying to establish an All Palestine Government, but did not have the full support of the Arab League, was reigned-in by them, and ultimately dissolved by the Arab League through President Nassar of Egypt; or Farhan al-Sa'di, a militant Sheik of the al-Qassam group, who led the 1936 Riots.

The Palestinian established their pattern of behavior early on in the struggle. Much of their argument is based on some form of justification for armed struggle; not on solutions through peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R

Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...

Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...

have you not noticed that the examples you give are islamonazi land grabs that should be fought against. Why is it that only islamonazis are allowed to steal other peoples land by force of arms, and then ethnically cleanse the original inhabitants with your full backing. Lets take Kosovo shall we when insurgent muslims invaded and started a war to force the true indigenous to give up their land in favour of islam. The same thing in south sudan an illegal land grab by Islamic insurgents.

Are you one of their dhimmi supporters ?

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

In some respects I have to agree.


(COMMENT)

In earlier times, this simplified idea was true. But in the context of the argument pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this issue is over "sovereignty" as we understand it to be from the 19th Century onward.

In any event, the credibility of the Palestinian is tainted. They, as an example, claim the modern code that territory cannot be acquired through armed force, yet, it was the Arab-Palestinian and the Arab League that tried to take the territory by armed force.

And by "taking territory," we all understand that to mean, the establishment of "sovereignty" and not ownership (a civil real-estate issue).

As we discussed in Post #517, there were "nonviolent" and "non-Hostile" ways to adjudicate claims the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) attempted to solve through conventional and asymmetric means.

And as we discussed in Post #502, the overall character of the Palestinian culture is not one in which we can reasonably expect:

To be sympathetic or understand of the original plight of the Jewish people, as the Allied Powers assessed the situation in the very early 20th Century.

It is not such, that we could ever expect they would not fall under the cult-like teachings of men such as the Syrian born Izz ad-Dīn al-Qassām, who was a Muslim preacher (of Black Hand fame) who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and migrated to Palestine to become one of their most revered martyrs in their fight against the Zionist (1920s/1930s); or Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who --- in 1948 attempted a grab for power by trying to establish an All Palestine Government, but did not have the full support of the Arab League, was reigned-in by them, and ultimately dissolved by the Arab League through President Nassar of Egypt; or Farhan al-Sa'di, a militant Sheik of the al-Qassam group, who led the 1936 Riots.

The Palestinian established their pattern of behavior early on in the struggle. Much of their argument is based on some form of justification for armed struggle; not on solutions through peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R

Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...

Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...

have you not noticed that the examples you give are islamonazi land grabs that should be fought against. Why is it that only islamonazis are allowed to steal other peoples land by force of arms, and then ethnically cleanse the original inhabitants with your full backing. Lets take Kosovo shall we when insurgent muslims invaded and started a war to force the true indigenous to give up their land in favour of islam. The same thing in south sudan an illegal land grab by Islamic insurgents.

Are you one of their dhimmi supporters ?

Arguing with a very British/Zionist racist is ludicrous...People have a right to choose their Religion. Your ideas of Western supremacy are an anachronism.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Oh, I believe that in part, your assessment is on the mark.

Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the break-up of specific geopolitical regions in recent decades has aided one bit in the development of intercultural relations or economic prosperity. It was more a very expedient means of restoring peace. As for the cultures, it only aided and abetted the cultural divide; mostly along hillbilly type clan boundaries. It does nothing to bring the people together for the greater good.

Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...

(COMMENT)

I don't think Kosovo is a good example because, under the Empire and the later Yugoslavian Regimes, there was peace between Kosovo and the Serbs. It was only after the break-ups that we see a tension explode into conflict.

Similarly, the Sudan is not a very good example because historically, it was part of Egypt. Even today, the Sudanese peace is very fragile.

Nothing about either of these self-declared independent countries actions, in their respective regions, has anything to be proud of either as a enlightened people able to or as societies that were able to emerge a strong species element.

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

(COMMENT)

This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone. It has nothing at all to do with what is right. In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).

The original reasoning behind the establishment of a Jewish Homeland at its cultural point of origin was, not just based on availability by the fall of the empire, but because it was recognized that the greatest concern was that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority (Jewish People as a culture). It was a benevolent action that fell above the general understanding of the lesser developed Arab world that is culturally based on certain preferences along ethnic, religious or racial groupings. The Jewish minority is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the shear might of its numbers, and a quasi-democratic process. For the Allied Powers to overcome the tyranny of the majority (Arabs) it was necessary to Mandate a political structure and Administrative process in which a minority was given a certain degree of primacy in that Allied Powers decision making.

This is actually not so unusual in the Islamic world. There are many documented cases where there is a quasi-dominant minority that has developed (as an example, Sunni Royal Families having domain over a predominately Shi'ite culture).

Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...

(COMMENT)

And this is one of those areas, in which I agree. The Allied Powers, and later the Western World, did tend to override the "customs of the ME's people" (as you say) because it was necessary to establish mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority:" which would have surely developed in a region dominated by the Arab culture and counterproductive Islamic philosophy.

It was necessary not to trivialize or oversimplify the interest of the majority (strength by numbers - might makes right - majority should have the rule) Arab argument. Yet it was just as essential that the concept and constitution superstructure behind the idea of establishing a Jewish National Home for the permanent preservation of the culture, be sturdy and able to withstand and defend itself against that inevitable back biting and end fighting that was surely to emerge in an environment surrounded by a culture and people susceptible to Islamic Fundamentalism and the danger that it would overcome the Jewish culture preservation effort. In the period, 1915 to 1920 - when these decisions were being made, the dangers may not have been immediately obvious, but the did ultimately emerge being slowly and exploding into the 1929 Riots; culminating in what we have today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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?

What is this solution, and does it entail the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.

International law calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

 

[toastman]

So many of my questions unanswered

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

(COMMENT)

This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone. It has nothing at all to do with what is right. In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).

Your post is based on false premise.

You assume that on one hand there were Palestinians and separately there were Jews. That is not true. The PLO Charter states that native Jews are legitimate Palestinian citizens. International law says the same thing. Even the Palestinian constitution of today states that all Palestinians are equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex...

So, where do you get your opinion?

 

[toastman]

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

(COMMENT)

This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone. It has nothing at all to do with what is right. In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).

Your post is based on false premise.

You assume that on one hand there were Palestinians and separately there were Jews. That is not true. The PLO Charter states that native Jews are legitimate Palestinian citizens. International law says the same thing. Even the Palestinian constitution of today states that all Palestinians are equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex...

So, where do you get your opinion?

His post is not based on false premise. But yours is.
What does your response have to do with what Rocco said?

You need to deal with your reading comprehension problem

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Oh, I believe that in part, your assessment is on the mark.

Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the break-up of specific geopolitical regions in recent decades has aided one bit in the development of intercultural relations or economic prosperity. It was more a very expedient means of restoring peace. As for the cultures, it only aided and abetted the cultural divide; mostly along hillbilly type clan boundaries. It does nothing to bring the people together for the greater good.

Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...

(COMMENT)

I don't think Kosovo is a good example because, under the Empire and the later Yugoslavian Regimes, there was peace between Kosovo and the Serbs. It was only after the break-ups that we see a tension explode into conflict.

Similarly, the Sudan is not a very good example because historically, it was part of Egypt. Even today, the Sudanese peace is very fragile.

Nothing about either of these self-declared independent countries actions, in their respective regions, has anything to be proud of either as a enlightened people able to or as societies that were able to emerge a strong species element.

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

(COMMENT)

This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone. It has nothing at all to do with what is right. In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).

The original reasoning behind the establishment of a Jewish Homeland at its cultural point of origin was, not just based on availability by the fall of the empire, but because it was recognized that the greatest concern was that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority (Jewish People as a culture). It was a benevolent action that fell above the general understanding of the lesser developed Arab world that is culturally based on certain preferences along ethnic, religious or racial groupings. The Jewish minority is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the shear might of its numbers, and a quasi-democratic process. For the Allied Powers to overcome the tyranny of the majority (Arabs) it was necessary to Mandate a political structure and Administrative process in which a minority was given a certain degree of primacy in that Allied Powers decision making.

This is actually not so unusual in the Islamic world. There are many documented cases where there is a quasi-dominant minority that has developed (as an example, Sunni Royal Families having domain over a predominately Shi'ite culture).

Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...

(COMMENT)

And this is one of those areas, in which I agree. The Allied Powers, and later the Western World, did tend to override the "customs of the ME's people" (as you say) because it was necessary to establish mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority:" which would have surely developed in a region dominated by the Arab culture and counterproductive Islamic philosophy.

It was necessary not to trivialize or oversimplify the interest of the majority (strength by numbers - might makes right - majority should have the rule) Arab argument. Yet it was just as essential that the concept and constitution superstructure behind the idea of establishing a Jewish National Home for the permanent preservation of the culture, be sturdy and able to withstand and defend itself against that inevitable back biting and end fighting that was surely to emerge in an environment surrounded by a culture and people susceptible to Islamic Fundamentalism and the danger that it would overcome the Jewish culture preservation effort. In the period, 1915 to 1920 - when these decisions were being made, the dangers may not have been immediately obvious, but the did ultimately emerge being slowly and exploding into the 1929 Riots; culminating in what we have today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?

I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?

For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?

 

[Phoenall]

Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...

Western societies and people who live in them have been shaped by Greco/Roman thought which is ego-alien in 2/3's of the world. Their military control by force does not change the inherit rights of groups ruled by others...Kosovo, South Su8dan come to mind...

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...

have you not noticed that the examples you give are islamonazi land grabs that should be fought against. Why is it that only islamonazis are allowed to steal other peoples land by force of arms, and then ethnically cleanse the original inhabitants with your full backing. Lets take Kosovo shall we when insurgent muslims invaded and started a war to force the true indigenous to give up their land in favour of islam. The same thing in south sudan an illegal land grab by Islamic insurgents.

Are you one of their dhimmi supporters ?

Arguing with a very British/Zionist racist is ludicrous...People have a right to choose their Religion. Your ideas of Western supremacy are an anachronism.

Its not the people choosing their religion it is the religion being forced on them by the sword. But then you don't see that as a problem when it is done by Islamic terrorists do you. Every theatre of war currently happening has at least one Islamic side involved, and it is the Islamic side that claims the land is theirs. Just wait until the muslims choose your religion for you, as they are doing all over the world.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

What is this solution, and does it entail the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.

International law calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

Care to provide a link to show that International Law calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews as your fake professor of International law says is the case. Only this time use an unbiased site that supports your claims

 

[Phoenall]

Palestinians have been by far the vast majority in Palestine, they have always had the inherent right to declare sovereignty. Just because they chose not to never negated that right.

(COMMENT)

This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone. It has nothing at all to do with what is right. In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).

Your post is based on false premise.

You assume that on one hand there were Palestinians and separately there were Jews. That is not true. The PLO Charter states that native Jews are legitimate Palestinian citizens. International law says the same thing. Even the Palestinian constitution of today states that all Palestinians are equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex...

So, where do you get your opinion?

While the same charter says that no Israeli Jews will be allowed to LIVE in Palestine doesn't it . Kinda makes a mockery of your whole stance regarding the PLO charter as it says that there is no longer such a thing as native Jews