I will not Bow!

[Indeependent]

I post on other forums where the participants are not mostly Americans. Even the Israel supporters on those forums, some are Israeli, agree that the non-Jewish Palestinians have gotten a raw deal. Their position is usually that the non-Jews should accept Jewish rule and privilege because Israel is the only Jewish ruled state. I can live with that. What I cannot countenance is the vilification of a whole people that I see here. And, having lived with them (oh also , my father was a diplomat and I lived in Tunisia from the age of 10 thru 13), , I don't appreciate the Arab mindset but yet, the vilification I see here is too much. They (the Arabs) are an obnoxious lot, they are always trying to screw you, but still they are humans.

I hope that Israel will survive as a progressive western society, but I think their current policies are self- destructive.

Was that posting the definition of Vague in some not well known Encyclopedia?

Could you restate that?

 

[Phoenall]

There are facts and then there is propaganda.

From UN archives, report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 1931.

3. Of the 5,533 immigrants registered during the year, 269 with 338 dependants belonged to the class of capitalists with means, including long-term loans, amounting to £P1,000 per family and upwards. 1,896 with 620 dependants were members of the working class; 1,058 were near relatives and dependants of residents in Palestine; and 507 were men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students. Among these classes were the following Jews:--233 capitalists with 286 dependants; 1,603 working men and women with 569 dependants; 813 dependants on residents in Palestine; and 57 men and women in religious occupations, elderly dependants of residents abroad, orphans, and students......

As recorded, 5,533 immigrants (2,293 men, 2,323 women, and 917 children) were admitted, including 4,075 Jews (1,604 men, 1,863 women, and 608 children). Among these immigrants were 1,580 persons who were in Palestine illegally (Jews 939, Christians 502, Moslems 137, Druzes 2) but received permission to remain permanently in the country. 2,701 of the immigrants came from Europe east of a line drawn from Danzig to Trieste, 1,146 from North Africa and Western Asia including `Iraq, Persia, and Afghanistan, 341 from Central Europe, 382 from the United States of America, and 546 (including 197 British Police) from the British Empire (apart from Aden, which is included in Western Asia).


"

So where does it say from the 1800's in your cut and paste ?

You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.

In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled. The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.

So you are caught lying and cant provide the evidence of your post, now why doesn't that surprise me. You could provide the links by simply typing them in.

The facts remain that the largest migrant group to Palestine was the arab muslims who went looking for work. The Jewish migration was minimal from 1800 till the 1940's.

 

[Phoenall]

So where does it say from the 1800's in your cut and paste ?

You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.

In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled. The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.

Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by 34,000 in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by only 195,000. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!

Just goes to show that the reality is that it was the arabs that were invading the land and not the Jews. But then the Jew haters will always bend the truth to support their POV.

 

[Phoenall]

You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.

In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled. The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.

Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by 34,000 in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by only 195,000. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!

I guess you are used to communicating with morons. The European population more than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.

See bending the facts by changing the numerical method.

If the Europeans increase by 100 and the arabs increase by 10,000 which group has increased the most. In this circumstance you are starting with a low population figure for the Jews and ahigh one for the arabs so you have to use the original numbers as a starting point. You cant compare percentages in this situation as it gives a flawed result skewed in your favours.
So the Jews increased by 34,000 while the rest increased by 195,000, now which group is the invaders and why should we be more concerned about them ?

 

[Phoenall]

You will have to go to the UN archives yourself to see other annual reports and info on population, as I am unable to post links.

In any case between 1851 and 1895 the European Jewish population of Palestine went from 13,000 to 47,000. More than tripled. The Arab population (including in those days local Jews who were called Jewish Arabs and made up about 2 % of the population) grew from 327,000 to 522,000 a normal growth rate for almost half a century.

Whoa! So according to your numbers the Jewish pop grew by 34,000 in the last half of the 19th century and the Gentile pop grew by only 195,000. No wonder they were driven to attack their Jewish neighbors! The harried Gentiles were surrounded by those Jews!

I guess you are used to communicating with morons. The European population more than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.

Just noticed your ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED in this post when you refuse to deal with the evidence that the JEWS were indigenous as well, and refused to allocate the arab contingent migrant status.

 

[Phoenall]

I guess you are used to communicating with morons. The European population more than tripled, i.e. grew over 300%, while the indigenous population Muslim, Jewish and Christian increased by about 30% in the same 45 year period.

I don't believe that anyone here with any smarts at all thinks that Sayit, a sharp fellow, communicates with morons. Possibly you can give us the facts you are stating from some regular encyclopedia, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or from some history department at a major university. I am sure something like this would be covered in a Middle East history department..

I cannot post links, it is not allowed until one has posted a certain number of posts. I have stated this a number of times. I have provided text to google to reach the various archives. That's the best I can do.

You have exceeded that number so post the links, but make sure they are not as biased as you so obviously are.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not really debatable; merely a matter of record.

You never did show where those Arab armies crossed the border into Israel.

(COMMENT)

Whether you consider the territory to be Israel, or territory under the protection and guidance of the UN through the Successor Government (the UNPC), each of the 5 Armies crossed the international boundaries of their respective nations and entered a territory beyond their sovereignty to intentionally interfere with the implementation of a General Assembly Resolution.

It doesn't matter if you recognize the boundaries of Israel. The "external interference" happened when the Armies of the Arab League entered the territory under the protection and control of the UN for the purpose of conducting hostile activities. Those forces went beyond their respective borders, to interrupt the lawful activities of the UN and the Successor Government; which was an act of aggression on the part of the 5 participating Armies of the Arab League (an external interference).

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect Palestine.

How do you call that interference?

Because they did not need to enter at all, they did so to destroy newly created Israel and mass murder all the Jews. They entered Jewish territory on all fronts and were beaten by a rag-tag army of farmers and tailors. They attempted to change the UN charter by means of force and the UN should have mobilised an army against them after kicking them out of the UN.

 

[Phoenall]

I post on other forums where the participants are not mostly Americans. Even the Israel supporters on those forums, some are Israeli, agree that the non-Jewish Palestinians have gotten a raw deal. Their position is usually that the non-Jews should accept Jewish rule and privilege because Israel is the only Jewish ruled state. I can live with that. What I cannot countenance is the vilification of a whole people that I see here. And, having lived with them (oh also , my father was a diplomat and I lived in Tunisia from the age of 10 thru 13), , I don't appreciate the Arab mindset but yet, the vilification I see here is too much. They (the Arabs) are an obnoxious lot, they are always trying to screw you, but still they are humans.

I hope that Israel will survive as a progressive western society, but I think their current policies are self- destructive.

Zionists and most Christians which have a majority of the influence that funds some of Israel's arsenal will view any aggression from the Palestinian side as terrorism and Israel only defending itself. Right of return aside continued settlement expansion in the West Bank is not seen as an aggressive act but that similar to American Manifest Destiny.

The vilification goes deeper than that. The very story Israel uses as its spiritual basis for operating the way it has teaches at a foundational level Arabs are the "ass of man". I understand that Christians think Israel has to be a state in order for the end of this world to happen. I have never understood how they can really get along though. The Jewish people I have spoke with pretty much denounce the idea of Christ being God.

American Christians do not realize that Jews consider Jesus Christ a charlatan.

And in this you are also wrong as the Jews view Christ as just another prophet, just not the messiah as prophesised.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think I had the date inserted appropriately.

Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.

(COMMENT)

The British Occupation of the formerly enemy held territory actually ended 1 July 1920, when the interim civil administration of territory actually began (a proto-Mandate period); pursuant arrangements and agreements between the Allied Powers.

The Palestinian Order in Council was issued 10 August 1922; and with the Permanent Mandate for Palestine of 12 August 1922, following two days later. Both the Order in Council and the Mandate were issued over two years after the beginning of British civil administration; with each being consistent with the other; and neither contradicting the basics policies laid out in the Interim Civil Administration.

I am not sure what meaning this has, or what our friend P F Tinmore is implying. There was no slight of hand intended here. I did not forget to insert the complete date; BUT have a direct link to the UN Document.

(APOLOGY)

If I appeared to be dishonest, I assure you it was unintended; and I sincerely apologized for not inserting a complete date or historical period reference.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

You post a lot of stuff that does not confirm your point. In this post alone "administration" was used to define the British in Palestine. The League of Nations Covenant said that mandates were to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone.

Your claim that there never was a Palestine and there never were Palestinians just doesn't hold water. Everything I see points away from that premise.

Then produce a treaty signed by a Palestinian leader that proclaims Palestine as a nation within the borders allocate at that time. It is that simple to do, yet you seem to find it very difficult to produce such a document prior to 1988. Do you think history is trying to tell you something ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense!

I think I had the date inserted appropriately.

Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.

(COMMENT)

The British Occupation of the formerly enemy held territory actually ended 1 July 1920, when the interim civil administration of territory actually began (a proto-Mandate period); pursuant arrangements and agreements between the Allied Powers.

The Palestinian Order in Council was issued 10 August 1922; and with the Permanent Mandate for Palestine of 12 August 1922, following two days later. Both the Order in Council and the Mandate were issued over two years after the beginning of British civil administration; with each being consistent with the other; and neither contradicting the basics policies laid out in the Interim Civil Administration.

I am not sure what meaning this has, or what our friend P F Tinmore is implying. There was no slight of hand intended here. I did not forget to insert the complete date; BUT have a direct link to the UN Document.

(APOLOGY)

If I appeared to be dishonest, I assure you it was unintended; and I sincerely apologized for not inserting a complete date or historical period reference.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

You post a lot of stuff that does not confirm your point. In this post alone "administration" was used to define the British in Palestine. The League of Nations Covenant said that mandates were to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone.

Your claim that there never was a Palestine and there never were Palestinians just doesn't hold water. Everything I see points away from that premise.

(COMMENT)

The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;" until 1988. The character of the mandate has nothing to do with the establishment of the country, state and nation through Independence. To use the term "Palestinian" (pre-1988) was to mean the "people of the Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "people of the former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine."

Secondly, the ability of the to "stand alone" is an important aspect. Clearly, the people of Syria and the partitioned-off portion to make Lebanon, as well as Jordan, were critical in determining their independence and sovereignty. Please notice that the Treaties did not mention Jordan and Lebanon. Under the Allied Powers, they were separated identities.

The region of Palestine (The Territory under Mandate) was also Partitioned into Jordan, Israel and another Arab State; just like the Territory under French Mandate was Partitioned into Syria and Lebanon.

You can carry-on all you want about some pre-1988 territory that was not recognized as a sovereign (able to stand alone). It doesn't matter because the reality is already written. But even today, what is recognized as the State of Palestine, is really not able to stand alone and support itself. Even the legitimacy of the government is in question from a domestic standpoint. Every year, like a beggar on the street, sponsors like the US, have to reach-out to donor nations to gather contributions to support a quasi-functional government and support the Palestine. In 2013, the Palestinian cabinet passes $3.9 billion budget for 2013, of which $1.4B was provided by donor nations.

Billions of euros in European aid to the PLO and Hamas between 2008 and 2012 may have been misspent, squandered or lost to corruption - according to an unpublished report by the European Court of Auditors - a Luxembourg-based watchdog - disclosed in an article appearing in The Sunday Times on 14 October.

Brussels reportedly transferred more than US$2.64 billion to the West Bank and Gaza in that four year period - but had little control over how it was spent - the auditors said in the damning report seen by The Sunday Times.

EU investigators who visited sites in Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank noted “significant shortcomings” in the management of funds sent to Gaza and the West Bank.

These disturbing revelations followed closely on the heels of a report in Ma’an News on 10 October claiming that the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) anti-corruption commission - established in 2010 - was working to retrieve PLO-owned land registered to individual PLO leaders - according to commission chief Rafiq al-Natsheh.

SOURCE: By David Singer Sunday, October 20, 2013

The PAL Budget for 2014 was approved at $4.2B. The Palestine Economic Initiative (PEI) – a US Development Plan for the economies of the West Bank and Gaza over the next three years [as a prerequisite (the bribe to bring them to the table) for a political settlement to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict] is targeted to bring a a 50% increase in Palestinian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over three years, cut of two-thirds in unemployment rates, and a virtual doubling of the Palestinian median wage. This is not something the Palestinians could do, or even negotiate, on their own; but, criminals that they are, were able to extort from the Peace Players in exchange for the negotiations held as hostage.

No moral high ground here.

In regards to the Clause 4 or Article 22, Covenant of the League of Nations, it should be noted that it says:

• "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

These two sentences do not deal exclusively with the small regional subdivision of the Mandate of Palestine alone. And the Mandate, written by the same authorities as wrote the Covenant, had a specific charge to accomplish other objectives:

• Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed 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; and
  
• Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
  
• Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
  
• Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
  
• Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
  
• Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.
  
  • Article 22 (paragraph 8): "The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council."
    • Please see the Order in Council as previously discussed.

Finally, I claimed that what it means to say "Palestine" and what it means to be "Palestinian" is being taken out of context by you.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

But even today, what is recognized as the State of Palestine, is really not able to stand alone and support itself.

Of course not. Israel has stolen, bombed, or bulldozed most of Palestine's economic infrastructure.

I think you should lay the blame on the assholes who have created this situation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;"

The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations.

ARTICLE 22.​

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

- See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

The importance of the right of self- determination of the Palestinian people was stressed repeatedly by the Court25 and by judges in their separate opinions. Judge Higgins declared that “the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State”.

From the 2004 Opinion of the International Court it is clear that the sacred trust contained in the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate with the dissolution of the League of Nations. Nor did it terminate with the withdrawal of the mandatory Power in 1948 or the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 in a portion of the mandated territory of Palestine. The Mandate imposed a special international status on the territory of Palestine as a whole, which continues to exist until the independence of the whole of Palestine is achieved and the sacred trust is fulfilled.

Britain?s betrayal of the sacred trust in Palestine, Prof John Dugard | The Balfour Project

The rights of the Palestinians has not expired. Violations of their rights do not negate their rights.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so they do.

The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;"

The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.

(TWO QUESTIONS)

• The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between "What State" and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?

• Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so they do.

The term "Palestine" was the short title to the "Territory under the Mandate for Palestine" or the "former Territory under the Mandate to Palestine;"

The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.

(TWO QUESTIONS)

• The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between "What State" and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?

• Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?

Most Respectfully,
R

Good question. Palestine was mentioned many times. Israel was not mentioned.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think I had the date inserted appropriately.

Rocco "forgot" to mention that this order was when Palestine was still a British occupied territory of Turkey.

(COMMENT)

The British Occupation of the formerly enemy held territory actually ended 1 July 1920, when the interim civil administration of territory actually began (a proto-Mandate period); pursuant arrangements and agreements between the Allied Powers.

The Palestinian Order in Council was issued 10 August 1922; and with the Permanent Mandate for Palestine of 12 August 1922, following two days later. Both the Order in Council and the Mandate were issued over two years after the beginning of British civil administration; with each being consistent with the other; and neither contradicting the basics policies laid out in the Interim Civil Administration.

I am not sure what meaning this has, or what our friend P F Tinmore is implying. There was no slight of hand intended here. I did not forget to insert the complete date; BUT have a direct link to the UN Document.

(APOLOGY)

If I appeared to be dishonest, I assure you it was unintended; and I sincerely apologized for not inserting a complete date or historical period reference.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

You post a lot of stuff that does not confirm your point. In this post alone "administration" was used to define the British in Palestine. The League of Nations Covenant said that mandates were to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone.

Your claim that there never was a Palestine and there never were Palestinians just doesn't hold water. Everything I see points away from that premise.

It doesn't matter what you see or what you say you see. You have zero credibility

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so they do.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements called the place Palestine without all that other propaganda crap added to it.

(TWO QUESTIONS)

• The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between "What State" and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?

• Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?

Most Respectfully,
R

Good question. Palestine was mentioned many times. Israel was not mentioned.

Again with this useless statement LOL

The armistice agreements were between WHAT STATE, WITH LEBANON, JORDAN, EGYPT, SYRIA??

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, so they do.


(TWO QUESTIONS)

• The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed in 1949 between "What State" and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria?

• Where is the Armistice Agreement with Palestine if it was an entity?

Most Respectfully,
R

Good question. Palestine was mentioned many times. Israel was not mentioned.

Again with this useless statement LOL

The armistice agreements were between WHAT STATE, WITH LEBANON, JORDAN, EGYPT, SYRIA??

Answer to toastman's question: Israel.

 

[toastman]

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria

 

[ForeverYoung436]

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and neighboring Egypt,[1] Lebanon,[2] Jordan,[3] and Syria

toastman, you are risking a C in Palestinian Abstract Philosophy 101. How will you bring up your GPA?