Phoney,shoony,joony,poony means confused, can't you find any other job to feed yourself.
Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS
- Thread starter MJB12741
- Start date
- Status
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
You and I are talking about two different things.
POINT ONE:
You are talking about a "civil real estate" matter. Civil matters are covered under the Mandate and San Remo Agreement by the phrase: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Between us, that is a much different discussion that requires patience and calm to discuss.
I have been talking about "independence and sovereignty." Neither of which is prejudicial to the civil rights pertaining to "real estate ownership." Real estate ownership is not a dependent components or requirement for the establishment of a "independence and sovereignty" and a Jewish National Home.
POINT TWO:
You and I are talking about two different things.
(COMMENT)
POINT ONE:
You are talking about a "civil real estate" matter. Civil matters are covered under the Mandate and San Remo Agreement by the phrase: "nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Between us, that is a much different discussion that requires patience and calm to discuss.
I have been talking about "independence and sovereignty." Neither of which is prejudicial to the civil rights pertaining to "real estate ownership." Real estate ownership is not a dependent components or requirement for the establishment of a "independence and sovereignty" and a Jewish National Home.
POINT TWO:
The League of Nations, the Mandatory, or the UN DID NOT annexed Palestine. You are correct, they did not have a need to do that.
ARTICLE I6 --- TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE, JULY 24, 1923
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
The previous sovereignty surrendered the territory to the Allied Powers, and agreed that the "future of these territories" and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
Most Respectfully,
R
ARTICLE I6 --- TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE, JULY 24, 1923
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
Of course it was an invasion. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans (Jews) descended on Palestine, evicted or otherwise eliminated Christians and Muslims that had been living there for many centuries and then declared themselves rulers of a sovereign state in the area. If that isn't an invasion, I don't know what is.
You are so blinded by propaganda, you are unable to discern what is so glaringly obvious.
Because the Pope sanctioned the settlement of the Americas by Spain and Portugal, it did not make the process any less of an invasion.
And, the Jewish settlement of Palestine was certainly a colonial project, by the UK's and the Zionist's own public admission, we have records of this from as early as in 1899, long before any Balfour Declaration.
Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times
An article about a Conference of Zionists published on July 20, 1899 in the New York Times depicts how the Conference sought to “colonize Palestine”....."
An article about a Conference of Zionists published on July 20, 1899 in the New York Times expresses that the Zionists “will colonize Palestine.”
The article explains that the conference discussed a paper from the English Zionist Federation “proposing the re-establishment of Judea as an independent State ..."
Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin
Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Commitee"
July 25, 1926
Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ
Palestine Conference Urges American Jews to Raise $4,500,000 to Spur Colonization
January 24, 1938
WASHINGTON (Jan. 23)
The National Conference for Palestine, attended by 1,500 representatives from all over the country, called on American Jewry today to raise $4,500,000 in the coming year, after speakers had urged the launching of an unprecedented colonization program in Palestine to absorb German, Rumanian and Polish emigrants.
Palestine Conference Urges American Jews to Raise $4,500,000 to Spur Colonization
British Leaders Laud Colonization Work in Palestine
February 26, 1936
British Leaders Laud Colonization Work in Palestine
"Weizmann Outlines Plan for Colonization of 250,000 Jews in Palestine Within Five Years"
Weizmann Outlines Plan for Colonization of 250,000 Jews in Palestine Within Five Years
WRONG as the international law of the time gave them the land. Stop confusing 1990 laws with what happened in 1917
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,389
- 4,876
- 1,815
You keep missing this part.
After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.
It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).
Partition and the Law - 1948
http://www.1948.org.uk/partition-and-the-law/It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).
Partition and the Law - 1948
RoccoR
Gold Member
Challenger, et al,
I have said something along these lines many times. You guys just don't get it. Your blinded by selfish political needs.
Sometimes you have to appreciate the emotions and thoughts of the early 1900's. The public opinion and political considerations in Britain and America had exhibited great sympathy before the War and the developing anti-Semitic persecution. These sympathies were translated into action were determined by the exigencies of the War.
Most Respectfully,
R
I have said something along these lines many times. You guys just don't get it. Your blinded by selfish political needs.
(COMMENT)
Sometimes you have to appreciate the emotions and thoughts of the early 1900's. The public opinion and political considerations in Britain and America had exhibited great sympathy before the War and the developing anti-Semitic persecution. These sympathies were translated into action were determined by the exigencies of the War.
Millions of tons of British: shipping had been sunk by German submarines. No American divisions were yet available in the trenches. In this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry, and would make it more difficult for Germany to reduce her military commitments and improve her economic position on the eastern front. 16. Those were the circumstances in which the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration.
” The Zionist leaders [Mr. Lloyd George informed us] gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”
17, To inform World Jewry of the Declaration millions of leaflets were circulated throughout the Jewish communities. They were dropped from the air on German and Austrian towns, and widely distributed through the Jewish belt from Poland to the Black Sea.
18. The Central Powers, meantime, had also recognized the war-value of Jewish sympathy, At the time of the Balfour Declaration the German Government was doing all it could to win the Zionist Movement over to its side; and after the Declaration it hastened, in conjunction with its Turkish allies, to formulate a rival proposition. A kind of chartered company was to be created for German Zionists. It would have a limited form of local self-government and a right of immigration into Palestine. By the end of rgI7 it was known that the Turks were willing to accept a scheme on those lines; but, before the concessions were finally confirmed in Constantinople, Palestine was in General Allenby’s hands.
Understanding that:” The Zionist leaders [Mr. Lloyd George informed us] gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”
18. The Central Powers, meantime, had also recognized the war-value of Jewish sympathy, At the time of the Balfour Declaration the German Government was doing all it could to win the Zionist Movement over to its side; and after the Declaration it hastened, in conjunction with its Turkish allies, to formulate a rival proposition. A kind of chartered company was to be created for German Zionists. It would have a limited form of local self-government and a right of immigration into Palestine. By the end of rgI7 it was known that the Turks were willing to accept a scheme on those lines; but, before the concessions were finally confirmed in Constantinople, Palestine was in General Allenby’s hands.
We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed ufs in evidence that: - ”
The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth.
Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recogmsed that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. "I am persuaded," said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, "that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth .“
I understand the intent of the Allied Powers very well; and do not attempt to polarize the reality of the time with the agenda of today's Palestinian claims.The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
All of what you cut and paste does not change the fact that European Jews invaded Palestine, expelled the inhabitants and colonized it. It doesn't matter that the "Allied Nations" or any other entity, through treaty or otherwise, facilitated the invasion and colonization.
You just don't seem to get it or are so brain washed it is impossible for you to grasp the obvious.
You just don't seem to get it or are so brain washed it is impossible for you to grasp the obvious.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Please understand that the US voice was merely one of many voices in an evolving chorus.
You keep quoting this pro-Palestinian web site that attempts to rewrite history. The opinion of President Wilson was not law. In fact the US was not even a member of the League of Nations; although it was an Allied Power.
The Allied Powers DID NOT Annex new territories; although there was no international law that would have prohibited that.
There was no international understanding pertaining to "sovereignty." The word is use one time and it is in a descriptive context:
• "territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them"
The citation that suggests that the 1919 Article 22 of the Covenant confers the Sovereignty to the indigenous population is entirely erroneous. And even if that were true, the Treaty of Lausanne (1923/24) would take precedence; since not all the parties to the treaty were also parties to the Covenant.
Most Respectfully,
R
Please understand that the US voice was merely one of many voices in an evolving chorus.
(COMMENT)
You keep quoting this pro-Palestinian web site that attempts to rewrite history. The opinion of President Wilson was not law. In fact the US was not even a member of the League of Nations; although it was an Allied Power.
The Allied Powers DID NOT Annex new territories; although there was no international law that would have prohibited that.
There was no international understanding pertaining to "sovereignty." The word is use one time and it is in a descriptive context:
• "territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them"
Most Respectfully,
R
- Thread starter
- #529
LOL. You are so funny Monte with all your nonsense. Please post here more often. So little left for us to laugh at these days while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.
RoccoR
Gold Member
montelatici, et al,
Do you not understand the consequences of the surrender?
You can take this ridiculous stance. But the fact of the matter is, that the territory was not sovereign to the Arab of Palestine. The Arabs were not invaded. No matter what the use of the word "colonization" meant or in what context is was use, immigration was approved and facilitated by the Allied Powers to which the territory was surrendered. It was NOT Arab territory. It was formerly Ottoman Territory (first sentence in Article 22) surrendered to the Allied Powers (Article 16 - Treaty of Lausanne). The Arabs were not invaded at all.
Most Respectfully,
R
Do you not understand the consequences of the surrender?
(COMMENT)
You can take this ridiculous stance. But the fact of the matter is, that the territory was not sovereign to the Arab of Palestine. The Arabs were not invaded. No matter what the use of the word "colonization" meant or in what context is was use, immigration was approved and facilitated by the Allied Powers to which the territory was surrendered. It was NOT Arab territory. It was formerly Ottoman Territory (first sentence in Article 22) surrendered to the Allied Powers (Article 16 - Treaty of Lausanne). The Arabs were not invaded at all.
Most Respectfully,
R
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
The Treaty of Lausanne does not have any impact on the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor does it change any of its terms and conditions. One of these terms contained in Article 22 stated:
"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."
Setting aside any question of sovereignty, how did the British insure "the well-being and development" of the people living in Palestine in 1919, 90% of which were Christians and Muslims, as required by the Covenant?
"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."
Setting aside any question of sovereignty, how did the British insure "the well-being and development" of the people living in Palestine in 1919, 90% of which were Christians and Muslims, as required by the Covenant?
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
You are out of your depth. Leave this to the grown ups.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,389
- 4,876
- 1,815
What part of the Treaty of Lausanne refutes my post?
You got there before me on the analogy, dammit!!
Had Rocco R read or researched the events and circumstances that led up to the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent involvement of the LoN, he would realise that the LoN was run by the victors of WW1 for their own benefit, the LoN merely provided a figleaf of "legality" to cover their ambitions. Had the U.S. Congress ratified Versailles and joined the LoN, things might have been different, but that's a path not taken. San Remo was a blatant carve up along 19th century colonial imperialist lines and in direct contravention of the wishes of indigenous peoples; something the LoN was supposed to protect.
Rocco R might avail himself of two good books on the subject:
"The Balfour Declaration" by Jonathan Schneer and "A line in the Sand" by James Barr.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Balfour-Declaration-Arab-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0812976037/?tag=usmb-20
http://www.amazon.com/Line-Sand-Anglo-French-Struggle-1914-1948/dp/0393344258/?tag=usmb-20
Also of interest is "The Peacemakers" by Margaret Macmillan who also touches on the the region but she deals more with the goings on of the Versailles Peace Conference as a whole.
http://www.amazon.com/Paris-1919-Months-Changed-World/dp/0375508260/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445598290&sr=1-1&keywords=paris+1919&refinements=p_n_feature_browse-bin:2656020011
Then explain the surrender terms that handed over sovereignty of the former Ottoman lands to the LoN. That this was standard practise then and that the LoN granted 22% of Palestine to the Jews as their NATIONal home
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
It doesn't matter who the territory belonged to Rocco. Transferring people or facilitating the transfer of thousands of people (in this case from another continent) to an already populated territory, evicting the people living in the area and facilitating the establishment of a sovereign at the expense of the local population constitutes an invasion.
The Americas were claimed and belonged to European states. The transfer of people from Europe to the New World, facilitated by various European states constituted an invasion. There is no way around it.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,389
- 4,876
- 1,815
You got there before me on the analogy, dammit!!
Had Rocco R read or researched the events and circumstances that led up to the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent involvement of the LoN, he would realise that the LoN was run by the victors of WW1 for their own benefit, the LoN merely provided a figleaf of "legality" to cover their ambitions. Had the U.S. Congress ratified Versailles and joined the LoN, things might have been different, but that's a path not taken. San Remo was a blatant carve up along 19th century colonial imperialist lines and in direct contravention of the wishes of indigenous peoples; something the LoN was supposed to protect.
Rocco R might avail himself of two good books on the subject:
"The Balfour Declaration" by Jonathan Schneer and "A line in the Sand" by James Barr.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Balfour-Declaration-Arab-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0812976037/?tag=usmb-20
http://www.amazon.com/Line-Sand-Anglo-French-Struggle-1914-1948/dp/0393344258/?tag=usmb-20
Also of interest is "The Peacemakers" by Margaret Macmillan who also touches on the the region but she deals more with the goings on of the Versailles Peace Conference as a whole.
http://www.amazon.com/Paris-1919-Months-Changed-World/dp/0375508260/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445598290&sr=1-1&keywords=paris+1919&refinements=p_n_feature_browse-bin:2656020011
Then explain the surrender terms that handed over sovereignty of the former Ottoman lands to the LoN. That this was standard practise then and that the LoN granted 22% of Palestine to the Jews as their NATIONal home
Link?
And you are part of that invasion so when will you sign over the land you stole and make yourself stateless.
In one breath you claim that the muslims owned the land and so should be given all of it. In the next you contradict yourself when you see that international law of 1923 contradicts your claims. The land owners could do what they wanted, as proven by you refusing to give up your stolen land in America
I am retired and self supporting, unlike you muslims who are the biggest scroungers on this earth.
I bet you would not dare say that to my face either being a coward, unless you had 10 heavily armed other muslims to back you up.
I am your worst nightmare as I have researched islam and the koran and know what your plans are.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Please comment on new “ Project Hell Marry trailer ?? Getting great reviews- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 0
-
Jasmine Crockett’s Security Guard Fatally Shot By Dallas SWAT In Standoff – What We Know- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
