I will not Bow!

[Phoenall]

"An excerpt on Palestine, from the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq from 1919..."

Which is about as relevant as - and binding as - and as valuable as - a roll of Charmin, in our present age.

Of course it is relevant. It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it. It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for the indigenous non-Jews.

While removing all rights from the indigenous Jews for all time. The whole treaty has to be taken in its full context along with all the other treaties to show that the mandate had decided to partition the land and to give one small corner to the Jews. 95% of the mandate was given to the muslims as agreed and then the muslims wanted the last 5% AS WELL. Try reading the Mcmahon letters that state the land to be given to the Jews that was agreed by Husseini

 

[Phoenall]

An excerpt on Palestine, from the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq from 1919.



(3) The Commission recognised also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour's often quoted statement, in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to-favouring "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist programme must be greatly modified. For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete disposition of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase. In his address, of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great "ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting": "The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material Interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery." If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine-tenths of the whole emphatically against the entire Zionist programme. -

King-Crane Commission recommendations - Syria/Palestine and Iraq - Non-UN document (29 August 1919)

Indeed.

Yet the muslim leader in the area had already agreed that the Jews should get the small parcel of land that you call Palestine. The reasoning was to have the Jews all in one place and not scattered around the M.E. The land was considered worthless with no oil or minerals, and mostly desert. The indigenous people were to be given the option of becoming citizens of the new state or moving to another part of the M.E as full citizens.

 

[Phoenall]

Of course it is relevant. It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it. It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for the indigenous non-Jews.

And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...

Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...

Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...

Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem. Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.

YOU LIE as nowhere does it state EUROPEAN ZIONISTS. Now why do you bring up the islamonazi LIES all the time.

 

[Phoenall]

And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...

Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...

Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...

Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem. Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.

And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?

Maybe he can show that it was European Zionists that caused the genocide of the Jews in medina by Mohamed back in 632C.E. Because that is when the problem started and the Jews were put on the hit list of all muslims.

 

[Phoenall]

Of course it is relevant. It is just as relevant as the Balfour Declaration which pre-dates it. It shows that there were concerns about the Zionist's intentions which were contrary to the safeguards that were intended for the indigenous non-Jews.

And now all you need is to make that operative in the Real World, and you're all set...

Rather like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted...

Nice background, but meaningless, in any operative sense...

Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem. Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.

Show were it says EUROPEAN Zionists, or are you being told to slip that in ?

 

[Phoenall]

Of course, but it lays to rest the common assertion here that the non-Jews are the cause of the problem. Quite clearly, it was known even then that the European Zionists were the problem.

And the person who wrote that sentence of course was a mind reader of Zionists!
You ever get embarrassed by stretching your Humanism a bit far?
By the way, how are those Islamic civil wars going?

I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine? It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some reading comprehension.

So when are you going to read it and stop inserting the term European zionist

 

[Phoenall]

I don't understand what current "Islamic" civil wars (whatever they are) have to do with the conclusions of a 1919 Commission on Palestine? It doesn't take mind-reading to come to the conclusion, it requires reading the Commission's report and some reading comprehension.

"Whatever they are"? Don't play innocent. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.

Again, what do they have to do with a commission on Palestine in 1919?

Because they were all part of Palestine in 1919

 

[Phoenall]

"Whatever they are"? Don't play innocent. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.

People being slaughtered left and right in the name of Islam and Monte can't get a good night's sleep because of Israel.

Again, I don't get the relationship. This section's subject matter is the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Do you want to change the subject?

Do you want to try researching Palestine for the period 1919, just to see were it was and what it covered ?

 

[Phoenall]

"Whatever they are"? Don't play innocent. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya to some degree, etc.

People being slaughtered left and right in the name of Islam and Monte can't get a good night's sleep because of Israel.

Again, I don't get the relationship. This section's subject matter is the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Do you want to change the subject?

Actually this section is about EVERYTHING that impacts on Israel and palestine , which includes the civil wars going on around them.

 

[Phoenall]

Again, what do they have to do with a commission on Palestine in 1919?

I already asked how the mind reading was accomplished; you didn't answer.

And I explained that no mind reading was necessary, the report's authors spelled it out. You do have to read the report though and you have to understand what you are reading. It appears to me that all you are interested in is responding in what you think is a clever manner but it doesn't come out that way. Take a deep breath, think it through and then respond.

Yes they spelt it out, and at no time did they mention European Zionism did they, so why did you bring it into the equation. Your biased stance is coming through like a beacon on a hill top, to you it is all about the JOOOOS and why they should be kicked out of the human race.

 

[Billo_Really]

And I explained that no mind reading was necessary, the report's authors spelled it out. You do have to read the report though and you have to understand what you are reading. It appears to me that all you are interested in is responding in what you think is a clever manner but it doesn't come out that way. Take a deep breath, think it through and then respond.

He doesn't have the required grey matter to deal with complex issues.

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, toastman, P F Tinmore, et al,

He is trying to say that by using the phrase "southernmost tip of Palestine," means (literally) that "Palestine" was some sort of nation or state with a geographic boundary.

What are you trying to prove by this Tinmore??

And what are you trying to tell us when you say that ISRAEL is not mentioned in the Armistice Agreement. What are you getting at? Please tell me

(OBSERVATION)



(COMMENT)

As our friend "Phoenall" in Posting 1207, as well as others, (and without regard to the much older single-commission opinion of King-Crane a half-century earlier) whatever you want to call the place holder "Palestine," in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state. It was a territory --- unable to stand on its own, totally dependent on the administrator government (either the UK or the UNPC) which were "entirely responsible --- both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

There can be nothing plainer than this.

Most Respectfully,
R

in 1948 it was NOT a sovereign state.

The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.

As the above shows they did not have the capability of self determination as the arab league had taken that away from them and put a governing body of foreign persons in place. That is why your words are so stupid and nonsensical, even you admit that the arab governing body was a foreign influence and made any declarations null and void. There was never a chance for the Palestinian arabs to show any self determination as they were under the control, and still are, of outside foreign influence.

 

[Phoenall]

The right to self determination does not require a sovereign state. A sovereign state is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite. Your post is irrelevant.

Oh shutup Tinmore. Whenever you don't like Rocco stating the truth, you tell him his post in irrelevant. Nobody said anything about self-determination. We are talking about a place called Palestine being a SOVEREIGN STATE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME

For EVERY country in the world, I can find out when they became a state. Including Palestine. Palestine became a state in 1988, and there's nothing you can say or do to change this

Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.

A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.

Yes in 1948 which they refused to implement due to outside foreign influence.

Correct but the palestinians tried to subvert an existing nation by claiming their land as well as territory allocated to them.

It was not until 1988 that they declared a state without defined borders and a governing body so they still have no self determination

 

[Phoenall]

Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.

A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.

got a link that their territory was defined ?

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.

Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.
---------------------
With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).
---------------------
The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906.

The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

All correct as it defines Palestine as the area left after the partition of the area formerly recognised as palesting into the nations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. So your claims of a Palestinian state prior to the date given have been destroyed by this link. It also shows that Palestine was not a nation just a place name, like Sinai and Negev

 

[Phoenall]

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.

That was from my statement which I was wrong to say. Would it be fair to say as a whole the view toward Jesus varies? I was referring to my father's experience. He converted to Judaism 15 years ago and in the process was told he had to denounce Christ. Perhaps it was because he was a Christian at the time. IDK I would get further details but we no longer communicate.

It seems there are a wide spectrum of views. Prophet as you said, false prophet, charlatan, some who have converted from Judaism to Christianity, some who view him as irrelevant and insignificant, and everything in between.

This example seems to reflect a view stronger than just a prophet:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CcZYdgIMhk]We Killed Jesus, We're Proud Of It!.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]

There are others showing where people of Jewish descent accepting Jesus as God.

I should have been specific to make a generalized statement that was incorrect to apply it the manner I did.

The problem lies in the way Jesus took over as god in the Christian religion and supplanting the Jewish God in the process. Even though both religions had the same roots they branched in different direction. As in all occupied land the quislings will do anything to keep their power, so they grasped the opportunity to remove a dissenting voice. That was the cause of the hate for the whole of the Jewish race, a handful of brown noses who conspired to have Jesus killed. In the process they started a revolution that has spread around the world. It is only recently that both sides have met in the middle and made restitutions over a 2,000 year old act

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, there was a potential for the right to self-determination; both for the Jewish and the Arab were being guided in that direction.

Did they have the right to create a state before or after they created their state.

A people do not need to get permission to create a state inside their own defined territory.

(COMMENT)

• When did the Palestinians create a State?

The many Arab League (Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) officially recognized "Palestine" as a state in 1988. Oddly enough, Lebanon did not recognize Palestine until 2008. Syria, conversely, officially recognized "Palestine" in 1967, and again in 2011.

There was an attempt to establish the "All Palestine Government" (APG) by the first Arab Higher Committee. This attempted failed and the APG was annulled by the Egyptian Government which Occupied the Gaza Strip. Jordan, which Occupied the West Bank, never recognized the APG and later annexed the West Bank.​

(QUESTIONS)

• With the exception of these two events, when did the "Palestinians" exercise their right of self-determination (other than to reject the Plan for an additional Arab State), and who knew about it? (Tell me they were not keeping it secret.)

• What countries today, officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?

• What organizations or activities officially recognize a pre-1988 "State of Palestine?

• If a Palestinian creates a state, and nobody knows about it, does it make a "state?"

Inquiring minds want to know!

Most Respectfully,
R

Why are you hung up on this state thing? Whether Palestine is a state or not is a matter of political opinion.

The right to self determination does not require a state.

So, what is your point?

Being a state is a part of that self determination, you cant have one without the other. And they must follow on each others heels.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, I thought that was exactly the question.

Why are you hung up on this state thing? Whether Palestine is a state or not is a matter of political opinion.

The right to self determination does not require a state.

So, what is your point?

(COMMENT)

So, are your saying that the Palestinians did not want a State or Nation until 1988? That the whole question is irrelevant! (WOW!)

As you know, the Palestinians called on Britain to create an independent, democratic state as required in the LoN Covenant.

After two and a half decades, there was still no elected government.

(QUESTION)

What is the question?

I thought the allegation was that:

• The Jewish invaded a Palestinian Country.
• That the Jewish stole their Country and currently occupy all of the territory.
• That the Jewish denied the Palestinian the right to self-determination.

Or did I get it wrong.

That was always the Zionist's stated goal.

Most Respectfully,
R

The British went one better and created 3 states 2 muslim and 1 Jewish as agreed by the LoN


There was no Palestinian country for the Jews to invade, and the Jews had as much right to the land as anyone.

There was no country to steal as the muslims gave it up

The muslims still have the right to self determination, they just have to exercise it.


And the arabs stated goal is to destroy Israel and mass murder all the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

Jewish children are not taught that. Stop lying

I used to date a jewish girl; man, was she a psycho in bed!

That was your excess weight knocking the breath out of her body, cant of been very pleasant to have a walrus flopping around sweating like there was no tomorrow.

 

[Billo_Really]

That was your excess weight knocking the breath out of her body, cant of been very pleasant to have a walrus flopping around sweating like there was no tomorrow.

That was back when I was playing basketball 3 times a week.

No excess weight during that period.

 

[Ronin]

Jewish children are not taught that. Stop lying

Lying? For what. I don’t intend to change any minds here. I may post something I am incorrect about but think is valid. In which case I’ll admit and mark it as having learned something. I have no reason to ever lie.

As far as what you are referring to: I’m basing it on observation. The over treatment the fellow indigenous population.

Secondly, is the foundation of Judaism based on the Old Testament? Are some if not most Israelis taught the Old Testament in a literal sense. “This Land is Mine, God Gave it to Me” because it says so right here.
Does the story of “God” suggesting Sarah’s maid go get knocked up from her husband only to have a change of heart and allow her to get knocked up set the stage for the justifying why it’s OK to take land?

I’ve read the Bible but do not claim to be an expert. Therefore I could be wrong but I was under the impression this passage was referring to Ishmael.

Genesis 16:12
"He will be a wild donkey of an ass, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone's hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
I have heard in the past that was a mistranslation. Every Bible I have viewed this story in has the translation as donkey or ass- not fruitful.

Children in Israel are taught the Genesis aren’t they? 1+1=2?