P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
OK, pull out one of the facts I posted and prove it wrong.
I will not Bow!
- Thread starter pbel
- Start date
- Status
OK, pull out one of the facts I posted and prove it wrong.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, this is an emotional response, not a rational response.
You are using a short title here: "Mandate"
In politics, seldom is anything certain and nothing lasts forever. So in the sense that the Mandate (as a mission) was temporary, then that much is correct. It is fair to say that the intent (no matter how sinister you make it out to be) had the aim of being an institution that would ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question; not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world (then or now).
Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too! You cannot claim on one hand that the Treaty of Lausanne, and then say it has: "no land, no borders, and no citizens." It has whatever the Mandatory and the Allied Power says it has.
Actually, you have this wrong. Even in the Treaty of Lausanne, one can see that "Palestine" (the territory) was such a subsidiary element, that it was not mentioned as a stand-alone or autonomous territory.
You are also wrong, in that to be "Palestinian" was to be defined by the Allied Powers. What it meant to be "Palestinian" was defined by the Allied Powers. Where the borders were was a decision of the Allied Powers. The Type "A" Mandates over the territories of Syria (including Lebanon), Mesopotamia (Iraq), and Palestine (including Jordan), were defined by what was agreed upon by the Allied Powers. The 23% of the Mandate for Palestine we talk about today, was a very small fraction indeed of what the Allied Powers exercised responsibility over. But yet, as an Article 22 territory not able to stand alone (then or now - economically, financially, militarily, territorially, or politically) has become extremely troublesome (Arabs fighting over the last crumbs to the cookie).
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, this is an emotional response, not a rational response.
(COMMENT)
You are using a short title here: "Mandate"
- The "Mandate of Palestine" is most definitely a "PLACE;" --- within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.
- The "Administrator of the Mandate" was the UK, as determined by the Allied Powers and approved by the League of Nations.
- Using "Mandate" in the form of the mission, was basically to see "the nation is provisionally recognised as independent, but receives the advice and assistance of a Mandatory in its administration until such time as it is able to stand alone;" as defined the directive: "that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
In politics, seldom is anything certain and nothing lasts forever. So in the sense that the Mandate (as a mission) was temporary, then that much is correct. It is fair to say that the intent (no matter how sinister you make it out to be) had the aim of being an institution that would ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question; not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world (then or now).
(COMMENT)
Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too! You cannot claim on one hand that the Treaty of Lausanne, and then say it has: "no land, no borders, and no citizens." It has whatever the Mandatory and the Allied Power says it has.
San Remo Convention Agreement by the Allied Powers said:
(COMMENT)
Actually, you have this wrong. Even in the Treaty of Lausanne, one can see that "Palestine" (the territory) was such a subsidiary element, that it was not mentioned as a stand-alone or autonomous territory.
You are also wrong, in that to be "Palestinian" was to be defined by the Allied Powers. What it meant to be "Palestinian" was defined by the Allied Powers. Where the borders were was a decision of the Allied Powers. The Type "A" Mandates over the territories of Syria (including Lebanon), Mesopotamia (Iraq), and Palestine (including Jordan), were defined by what was agreed upon by the Allied Powers. The 23% of the Mandate for Palestine we talk about today, was a very small fraction indeed of what the Allied Powers exercised responsibility over. But yet, as an Article 22 territory not able to stand alone (then or now - economically, financially, militarily, territorially, or politically) has become extremely troublesome (Arabs fighting over the last crumbs to the cookie).
Most Respectfully,
R
That's not the challenge.
No one is disputing that some of that obscure Treaty happy horseshit CAN be interpreted in such-and-so a manner...
People are disputing whether such interpretations were OPERATIVE at the time of the termination of the Mandate, in a practical sense...
If they were not operative in a PRACTICAL sense, then they do not count, for all intents and purposes...
You are chasing the Ghost of Ramadan Past...
And it does not signify in the Real World...
Like I said, you're holdin' a pair of deuces...
It's not enough to win the game, at the Big Boy table...
Last edited:
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
Now, all you need is for your point to be recognized, globally, and to be made operative, retroactively, to May 14, 1948, and you're all set...
Wake me up, when something happens in connection with that, eh?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
You can babble on and continue to make a fool of yourself or you can prove one of my points to be incorrect.
It is your choice.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
No, I don't agree to your point.
The "provisional recognition" of a defined nation had not been determined.
It was just as clear, that indigenous populations where divided:
They Allied Powers could have just as easily decided a different course of action, one in which the people we call "Palestinians" today were to be absorbed by either Syria or Jordan; or some combination thereto.
Nothing in what I said, or even what the Allied Powers said, assured that there would be a recognition of Palestine. They could have completely dissolved that concept in given it to someone else as part of their sovereign territory. The Allied Powers might have never created a Palestine.
Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers." They didn't have to create a territory of "Palestine." In retrospect, with the scope and nature of the regional Arabs not being able to stand alone, may be the Allied Powers should have given sovereignty to one of the sons of the King of the Hedjaz.
But in what I said, doesn't in any way support your thesis that "Palestine" should in any way be provisionally recognized for autonomy.
Most Respectfully,
R
No, I don't agree to your point.
(COMMENT)
The "provisional recognition" of a defined nation had not been determined.
It was just as clear, that indigenous populations where divided:
- Those ready to stand alone.
- Those NOT ready to stand alone.
They Allied Powers could have just as easily decided a different course of action, one in which the people we call "Palestinians" today were to be absorbed by either Syria or Jordan; or some combination thereto.
Nothing in what I said, or even what the Allied Powers said, assured that there would be a recognition of Palestine. They could have completely dissolved that concept in given it to someone else as part of their sovereign territory. The Allied Powers might have never created a Palestine.
Remember, what the Allied Powers provisionally recognised as independent was "within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers." They didn't have to create a territory of "Palestine." In retrospect, with the scope and nature of the regional Arabs not being able to stand alone, may be the Allied Powers should have given sovereignty to one of the sons of the King of the Hedjaz.
But in what I said, doesn't in any way support your thesis that "Palestine" should in any way be provisionally recognized for autonomy.
Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR
Gold Member
Kondor3, et al,
I think we're past that point.
I think the Allied Powers gave much to much credit to the Arab-Palestinian, as a indigenous population with the character, morality, and social capacity that could evolve into peaceful nation. If they had such qualities, they would have never opened Jihad and the Fedayeen would have never threatened genocide. It would have been unthinkable (then and even now as they pursue such a legacy).
Retroactive political play is impractical. No one actually thinks that they would trade a thriving, productive, economically sound, socially integrated society, and an independently prosperous nation like Israel for a failed Islamic Jihadist State like Palestine; which is still squabbling over who governs, can't pay their bills, are to busy promoting armed struggle and conflict to develop economically and commercially. Nobody wants another terrorist dominated, Jihadist trained welfare state they have to rebuild. One needs only look at the governing bodies in Ramallah and Gaza to decide if they want any piece of that. No matter what standard you apply, the Palestinian represents a culture that has generations of offspring trained to be nothing more that Jihadist and Fedayeen. Of what value it that? Under Article 22 of the Covenant to the League of Nations, they are a people not ready to stand alone - alongside the other nations of the world. They still haven't reached that point.
Most Respectfully,
R
I think we're past that point.
(COMMENT)
I think the Allied Powers gave much to much credit to the Arab-Palestinian, as a indigenous population with the character, morality, and social capacity that could evolve into peaceful nation. If they had such qualities, they would have never opened Jihad and the Fedayeen would have never threatened genocide. It would have been unthinkable (then and even now as they pursue such a legacy).
Retroactive political play is impractical. No one actually thinks that they would trade a thriving, productive, economically sound, socially integrated society, and an independently prosperous nation like Israel for a failed Islamic Jihadist State like Palestine; which is still squabbling over who governs, can't pay their bills, are to busy promoting armed struggle and conflict to develop economically and commercially. Nobody wants another terrorist dominated, Jihadist trained welfare state they have to rebuild. One needs only look at the governing bodies in Ramallah and Gaza to decide if they want any piece of that. No matter what standard you apply, the Palestinian represents a culture that has generations of offspring trained to be nothing more that Jihadist and Fedayeen. Of what value it that? Under Article 22 of the Covenant to the League of Nations, they are a people not ready to stand alone - alongside the other nations of the world. They still haven't reached that point.
Most Respectfully,
R
What legal and moral high ground, they are terrorist mass murderers who kill innocent children out of some belief that the world will capitulate and give them Israel. The legalities are that according to a Judge well versed in International Law the Israeli's have a better claim to the west bank and gaza than anyone else. Their morals are lower than those of a flea ridden alley cat on heat. Even your own links say they have no legal standing or rights, yet still Israel offers to deal with them honourably and decently. All your friends do is make ILLEGAL PRE CONDITIONS.
Because the very fact that your source is a biased and flawed one shows that your facts are nothing more than fantasies.
Now why didn't the Palestinians enact a Nationality Law like all the other nations made out of the mandate for Palestine ?
Wassa madda, Tinny?
Can't face the idea that what you're driving at doesn't matter a damn, at the Big Boy table?
I'm not the one playing - or coming off as - the fool.
I'm not the one trying to conjure-up a Ghost of a Country That Never Was.
If you're looking for 'fools' in any such dialogue, you may wish to be a little more careful with your targeting choices.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Even you have to agree that the perception of the Palestinian holding the "legal and moral high ground" is nothing more than an illusion; a magicians trick, a variation of Three-card Monte.
No one can honestly say they hold the "legal and moral high ground" when they openly declare genocide, have invaded Israeli territory with conventional force, and promoted armed struggle through the use of any means necessary including massacres, piracy, hijackings, suicide bombings and indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets. The Palestinian can't possibly hold the "legal and moral high ground" when they conduct summer terrorism training camps for children. All this is a matter of record, and establishes a series of criminal past practices and a history of hostile terrorist behaviors.
Yes, the Palestinians have shifted tactics, and periodically tone down their activities, but that is only really moving the walnut shell on the felt and asking where the pea is. It is a trick. The Palestinians play the same game with the peace. They Israelis go to the table and the Palestinians shift and move the terms around then ask where the peace is.
You cannot play the "legal and moral high ground" card with me. There are very few things that are absolute in this universe; but one of them is that you simply can't connect a Jihadist and Fedayeen Palestinians and "legal and moral high ground" without creating an oxymoron. It violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You can't measure the integrity of a Palestinian and know its honesty and morality at the same time. You can either see one playing the part of a virtual victim with the sad face - or - seen where it been by its past history of behavior and path of destruction. But you can't see them both in an honest effort at the negotiation table forging the peace.
A three-card Monte game in Jaffa, Israel (2005).
It has all the hallmarks of the con; the cards are slightly curved,
the corners have been bent and the dealer has the cash in hand
to conceal any sleight-of-hand.
Most Respectfully,
R
Even you have to agree that the perception of the Palestinian holding the "legal and moral high ground" is nothing more than an illusion; a magicians trick, a variation of Three-card Monte.
(COMMENT)
No one can honestly say they hold the "legal and moral high ground" when they openly declare genocide, have invaded Israeli territory with conventional force, and promoted armed struggle through the use of any means necessary including massacres, piracy, hijackings, suicide bombings and indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets. The Palestinian can't possibly hold the "legal and moral high ground" when they conduct summer terrorism training camps for children. All this is a matter of record, and establishes a series of criminal past practices and a history of hostile terrorist behaviors.
Yes, the Palestinians have shifted tactics, and periodically tone down their activities, but that is only really moving the walnut shell on the felt and asking where the pea is. It is a trick. The Palestinians play the same game with the peace. They Israelis go to the table and the Palestinians shift and move the terms around then ask where the peace is.
You cannot play the "legal and moral high ground" card with me. There are very few things that are absolute in this universe; but one of them is that you simply can't connect a Jihadist and Fedayeen Palestinians and "legal and moral high ground" without creating an oxymoron. It violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You can't measure the integrity of a Palestinian and know its honesty and morality at the same time. You can either see one playing the part of a virtual victim with the sad face - or - seen where it been by its past history of behavior and path of destruction. But you can't see them both in an honest effort at the negotiation table forging the peace.
A three-card Monte game in Jaffa, Israel (2005).
It has all the hallmarks of the con; the cards are slightly curved,
the corners have been bent and the dealer has the cash in hand
to conceal any sleight-of-hand.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
They are claims, not fact. And your claims are constantly dismantled and flushed down the toilet (for the specific claims I'm referring to, see post #989)
And even when we give you indisputable evidence to dispute your so called 'facts',. you STILL claim you are right and we are wrong.
You need to stop posting your Palestinians propaganda and listen to Rocco, someone who has extensive knowledge on the I/P conflict and stop trying to fight the losing battle with him .
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
RoccoR said:
And the were. Palestine's international borders were defined.
The Palestinians were a distinct nationality.
The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine.
The Treaty of Lausanne was when these de facto characteristics became de jure.
I quoted treaties and laws that stated these points.
Then you said:
RoccoR said:
What do you have to prove that these documents are incorrect?
Your claim that the sovereign state of Palestine was set by the Treaty of Lausanne
SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS: THE TREATY OF LAUSANNE WAS WHAT CREATED THE STATE 'PALESTINE' FOR THE PALESTINIANS (no neccessarily in those words.
I several links about the Treaty of Lausanne.
Not one of them mention anything regarding the treaty having something to do with creating any state, let a lone a state of Palestine for the Palestinians. For ***** sake, it was a peace treaty !
Not one of them mention anything regarding the treaty having something to do with creating any state, let a lone a state of Palestine for the Palestinians. For ***** sake, it was a peace treaty !
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,481
- 4,889
- 1,815
I didn't say that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
Republicans want to finally end the insane policy of giving free k-12 to illegal alien kids
- Started by StatesRightsForever
- Replies: 5
-
Video makes the claim that Trump and Netanyahu would be hanged for war crimes if we had Nierenberg like trials.- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 2
-
-
This Ontario deputy police chief has been suspended since 2024. Last year he got a pay raise- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
Cheer up, Elon Musk said that there ONLY a 20% chance that AI will destroy all of mankind- Started by Votto
- Replies: 7
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Republicans want to finally end the insane policy of giving free k-12 to illegal alien kids
- Latest: StatesRightsForever
-
