Israel Wants Peace

[MJB12741]

That is true. The ancient town of Shechem, where Joseph is buried, was renamed Neapolis by the Romans. The Muslims call it Nablus, because they can't pronounce the "p" sound. How can they be ethnic, authentic "Palestinians", when they can't even pronounce the name of their own country?

Palestine is roman term. Arabs use 'F' instead of 'P'

Problem is filistine sound like philistine, who were agean sea people that invaded parts of the levant and egypt. They were not native and have long since died off.

Palestinians can't even agree on being a people let alone forming any kind of a state today. They are war with themselves. They reject their own refugees and want everyone else to care for them until Israel lets them all move into Israel but not as Israelis. They have few valid deeds and they wouldn't let their own return within the first ten years so they could claim any and they did own, register it, pay taxes on it or do military service within Israel. There are still cases in the Israeli courts that rule in favor of palestinians.

Most refugees were not born in Israel and have never even been to Israel. Their grandparent might have worked or even been born in the mandate, but the children and grandchildren did not. There might be some return for those who actually left but not for their later generations. Even if there were to be any possible 'return' it would be only a limited number and over a period so Israel could find jobs and housing for them, and time for them to learn hebrew. Palestinians had a chance to return through various programs until Oslo. About two thousand a year took advantage of these programs, usually against the effort of the palestinian refugee groups.

There is no single absolute answer for the palestinian identity or refugees. Israel has taken in all the jews forced out of the middle east states, but they are expect to take in all the families of palestinians that left because arabs told them to or to escape the war arabs began? They should have the rights of arab Israelis that stayed and helped build a strong nation? That served in the military? That worked for their homes and children? That are Israeli?

Any long term peace has to be realistic, not based in fantasy and lies.

It is indeed sad that all surrounding Arab countries, who know the Palestinians best, refuse to grant their Palestifnians a right of return back to their native Arab country homelands.

You mean Palestine the home of the Palestinians, as the name suggests.

Jews were native Palestinians. The overwhelming majority of today's Palestinians are Muslim squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole. In some cases even for generations now.

There were no Jews to speak of in Roman Palestine after Masada. Prior to Muslim rule, Palestine was Christian. The only thieves and squatters are the European colonists.

Eh, Monte, I said " The overwhelming majority of today's Palestinians are MUSLIM squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole. In some cases even for generations now.

Good luck with your reading disorder.

 

[montelatici]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

 

[Phoenall]

When you post from my links, you reinforce the validity of my position, derived from the facts contained in the linked documents.

So that's what You tell Yourself when someone contradicts You with Your own link?

I was never contradicted. If so, the text in the link would have contradicted itself, which is never the case in a peer reviewed UN document. Think logically. Don't just follow that maniac Phoney blindly, or better yet say nothing as it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

You stopped using links right after it was shown you had cherry picked parts to support your NAZI JEW HATRED POV

Get a grip. I use all the links I have access to when necessary you maniac.

Im not the only one that has noticed it, and others are commenting on your dwindling stock of links after they are shown to be saying the opposite of what you claim they say

 

[Phoenall]

What will change? Aren't there like 10 million arabs around Israel?
Or do You think they'll organize themselves politically to have any significance to their number?

When quality is poor numbers don't play much. Not those numbers.

They are not a nation and never had organized themselves logically.
They can't even pronounce the first latter in "palestine" yet claiming we're fake
with all of their religion and infrastructure coming from us.

Could have peace if they wouldn't be afraid of their arab brothers who
don't wanna see them in their deserts.

"Why should I build my life around, I'll frighten the jew into submission, like we did in Iraq, Yemen and many more before".

That is true. The ancient town of Shechem, where Joseph is buried, was renamed Neapolis by the Romans. The Muslims call it Nablus, because they can't pronounce the "p" sound. How can they be ethnic, authentic "Palestinians", when they can't even pronounce the name of their own country?

Palestine is roman term. Arabs use 'F' instead of 'P'

Problem is filistine sound like philistine, who were agean sea people that invaded parts of the levant and egypt. They were not native and have long since died off.

Palestinians can't even agree on being a people let alone forming any kind of a state today. They are war with themselves. They reject their own refugees and want everyone else to care for them until Israel lets them all move into Israel but not as Israelis. They have few valid deeds and they wouldn't let their own return within the first ten years so they could claim any and they did own, register it, pay taxes on it or do military service within Israel. There are still cases in the Israeli courts that rule in favor of palestinians.

Most refugees were not born in Israel and have never even been to Israel. Their grandparent might have worked or even been born in the mandate, but the children and grandchildren did not. There might be some return for those who actually left but not for their later generations. Even if there were to be any possible 'return' it would be only a limited number and over a period so Israel could find jobs and housing for them, and time for them to learn hebrew. Palestinians had a chance to return through various programs until Oslo. About two thousand a year took advantage of these programs, usually against the effort of the palestinian refugee groups.

There is no single absolute answer for the palestinian identity or refugees. Israel has taken in all the jews forced out of the middle east states, but they are expect to take in all the families of palestinians that left because arabs told them to or to escape the war arabs began? They should have the rights of arab Israelis that stayed and helped build a strong nation? That served in the military? That worked for their homes and children? That are Israeli?

Any long term peace has to be realistic, not based in fantasy and lies.

It is indeed sad that all surrounding Arab countries, who know the Palestinians best, refuse to grant their Palestifnians a right of return back to their native Arab country homelands.

You mean Palestine the home of the Palestinians, as the name suggests.

So named by the Romans as an insult to the Jews. And filistan has a different meaning and location

 

[Phoenall]

That is true. The ancient town of Shechem, where Joseph is buried, was renamed Neapolis by the Romans. The Muslims call it Nablus, because they can't pronounce the "p" sound. How can they be ethnic, authentic "Palestinians", when they can't even pronounce the name of their own country?

Palestine is roman term. Arabs use 'F' instead of 'P'

Problem is filistine sound like philistine, who were agean sea people that invaded parts of the levant and egypt. They were not native and have long since died off.

Palestinians can't even agree on being a people let alone forming any kind of a state today. They are war with themselves. They reject their own refugees and want everyone else to care for them until Israel lets them all move into Israel but not as Israelis. They have few valid deeds and they wouldn't let their own return within the first ten years so they could claim any and they did own, register it, pay taxes on it or do military service within Israel. There are still cases in the Israeli courts that rule in favor of palestinians.

Most refugees were not born in Israel and have never even been to Israel. Their grandparent might have worked or even been born in the mandate, but the children and grandchildren did not. There might be some return for those who actually left but not for their later generations. Even if there were to be any possible 'return' it would be only a limited number and over a period so Israel could find jobs and housing for them, and time for them to learn hebrew. Palestinians had a chance to return through various programs until Oslo. About two thousand a year took advantage of these programs, usually against the effort of the palestinian refugee groups.

There is no single absolute answer for the palestinian identity or refugees. Israel has taken in all the jews forced out of the middle east states, but they are expect to take in all the families of palestinians that left because arabs told them to or to escape the war arabs began? They should have the rights of arab Israelis that stayed and helped build a strong nation? That served in the military? That worked for their homes and children? That are Israeli?

Any long term peace has to be realistic, not based in fantasy and lies.

It is indeed sad that all surrounding Arab countries, who know the Palestinians best, refuse to grant their Palestifnians a right of return back to their native Arab country homelands.

You mean Palestine the home of the Palestinians, as the name suggests.

Jews were native Palestinians. The overwhelming majority of today's Palestinians are Muslim squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole. In some cases even for generations now.

There were no Jews to speak of in Roman Palestine after Masada. Prior to Muslim rule, Palestine was Christian. The only thieves and squatters are the European colonists.

According to islamonazi propaganda and Nazi catholic propaganda. The reality is the Jews that were left after the romans enslaved the girls were left to fend for themselves in Israel. Those are the real Palestinians so called by the romans and then the arab muslims as an insult to their culture and religion. It was only in 1960 that the arab muslims were told to get a name to give their terrorist organisation some credibility and Arafat chose Palestinians.

 

[rylah]

That is true. The ancient town of Shechem, where Joseph is buried, was renamed Neapolis by the Romans. The Muslims call it Nablus, because they can't pronounce the "p" sound. How can they be ethnic, authentic "Palestinians", when they can't even pronounce the name of their own country?

Palestine is roman term. Arabs use 'F' instead of 'P'

Problem is filistine sound like philistine, who were agean sea people that invaded parts of the levant and egypt. They were not native and have long since died off.

Palestinians can't even agree on being a people let alone forming any kind of a state today. They are war with themselves. They reject their own refugees and want everyone else to care for them until Israel lets them all move into Israel but not as Israelis. They have few valid deeds and they wouldn't let their own return within the first ten years so they could claim any and they did own, register it, pay taxes on it or do military service within Israel. There are still cases in the Israeli courts that rule in favor of palestinians.

Most refugees were not born in Israel and have never even been to Israel. Their grandparent might have worked or even been born in the mandate, but the children and grandchildren did not. There might be some return for those who actually left but not for their later generations. Even if there were to be any possible 'return' it would be only a limited number and over a period so Israel could find jobs and housing for them, and time for them to learn hebrew. Palestinians had a chance to return through various programs until Oslo. About two thousand a year took advantage of these programs, usually against the effort of the palestinian refugee groups.

There is no single absolute answer for the palestinian identity or refugees. Israel has taken in all the jews forced out of the middle east states, but they are expect to take in all the families of palestinians that left because arabs told them to or to escape the war arabs began? They should have the rights of arab Israelis that stayed and helped build a strong nation? That served in the military? That worked for their homes and children? That are Israeli?

Any long term peace has to be realistic, not based in fantasy and lies.

It is indeed sad that all surrounding Arab countries, who know the Palestinians best, refuse to grant their Palestifnians a right of return back to their native Arab country homelands.

You mean Palestine the home of the Palestinians, as the name suggests.

Jews were native Palestinians. The overwhelming majority of today's Palestinians are Muslim squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole. In some cases even for generations now.

There were no Jews to speak of in Roman Palestine after Masada. Prior to Muslim rule, Palestine was Christian. The only thieves and squatters are the European colonists.

So evict the European-ashkenazi jews and leave those Sefardi
that ran from pogroms and massacres in those arab countries?

I see You have a problem with "european colonists"
so what 'bout Sefardi's who look exactly like those arabs?

 

[Phoenall]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

 

[Phoenall]

Palestine is roman term. Arabs use 'F' instead of 'P'

Problem is filistine sound like philistine, who were agean sea people that invaded parts of the levant and egypt. They were not native and have long since died off.

Palestinians can't even agree on being a people let alone forming any kind of a state today. They are war with themselves. They reject their own refugees and want everyone else to care for them until Israel lets them all move into Israel but not as Israelis. They have few valid deeds and they wouldn't let their own return within the first ten years so they could claim any and they did own, register it, pay taxes on it or do military service within Israel. There are still cases in the Israeli courts that rule in favor of palestinians.

Most refugees were not born in Israel and have never even been to Israel. Their grandparent might have worked or even been born in the mandate, but the children and grandchildren did not. There might be some return for those who actually left but not for their later generations. Even if there were to be any possible 'return' it would be only a limited number and over a period so Israel could find jobs and housing for them, and time for them to learn hebrew. Palestinians had a chance to return through various programs until Oslo. About two thousand a year took advantage of these programs, usually against the effort of the palestinian refugee groups.

There is no single absolute answer for the palestinian identity or refugees. Israel has taken in all the jews forced out of the middle east states, but they are expect to take in all the families of palestinians that left because arabs told them to or to escape the war arabs began? They should have the rights of arab Israelis that stayed and helped build a strong nation? That served in the military? That worked for their homes and children? That are Israeli?

Any long term peace has to be realistic, not based in fantasy and lies.

It is indeed sad that all surrounding Arab countries, who know the Palestinians best, refuse to grant their Palestifnians a right of return back to their native Arab country homelands.

You mean Palestine the home of the Palestinians, as the name suggests.

Jews were native Palestinians. The overwhelming majority of today's Palestinians are Muslim squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole. In some cases even for generations now.

There were no Jews to speak of in Roman Palestine after Masada. Prior to Muslim rule, Palestine was Christian. The only thieves and squatters are the European colonists.

So evict the European-ashkenazi jews and leave those Sefardi
that ran from pogroms and massacres in those arab countries?

I see You have a problem with "european colonists"
so what 'bout Sefardi's who look exactly like those arabs?

According to freddy boy they fought alongside the arab muslims against the invasion of the Russian non Jews. It is his brainwashing at the hands of the Catholic church that has turned him into a NAZI JEW HATER

 

[rylah]

"They killed Jesus and drink our blood!! All of them are GUILTY! Let's destroy 'em by saying that
a jewish "messiah" was a greek balestinian...well at least he could pronounce the-P"

 

[aris2chat]

"They killed Jesus and drink our blood!! All of them are GUILTY! Let's destroy 'em by saying that
a jewish "messiah" was a greek balestinian...well at least he could pronounce the-P"

It is not so much about being able to pronounce it, they did not have that letter in their alphabet.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm#_ftn10

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

 

[MJB12741]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

The Palestinians need & well deserve a Palestinian State with self determination where they will no longer have Israel to suck off of to provide for them. The question is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country wants them.

 

[montelatici]

The Israeli Jews need and deserve a Jewish state with self-determination where they will no longer have to suck resources and political protection from the United States. The question is where, no one in their European homeland want them back.

 

[Phoenall]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Wrong as this OFFICIAL report states

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.
4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied 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, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

 

[montelatici]

Churchill indicating that he doesn't recognize the Palestinian delegation as representing the Palestinian people because it only represents the indigenous Christians and Muslims and not the European colonists is ludicrous, a typical British colonial tactic.

Your highlighted text just confirms that the British intended to disregard the terms of the LoN Covenant by using the term "somewhat different interpretation" and dispossess the Christians and Muslims of their land from the outset. What does that change with respect to the European colonization of Palestine

"were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22

This latter statement is just subterfuge. The British never intended to protect the rights of the Palestinians.


"However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

Helping confirm that the British were bent on colonizing Palestine with European Jews and fully intended to dispossess the Muslims and Christians, is helpful but unnecessary. But, thanks anyway.

 

[Phoenall]

Churchill indicating that he doesn't recognize the Palestinian delegation as representing the Palestinian people because it only represents the indigenous Christians and Muslims and not the European colonists is ludicrous, a typical British colonial tactic.

Your highlighted text just confirms that the British intended to disregard the terms of the LoN Covenant by using the term "somewhat different interpretation" and dispossess the Christians and Muslims of their land from the outset. What does that change with respect to the European colonization of Palestine

"were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22

This latter statement is just subterfuge. The British never intended to protect the rights of the Palestinians.


"However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

Helping confirm that the British were bent on colonizing Palestine with European Jews and fully intended to dispossess the Muslims and Christians, is helpful but unnecessary. But, thanks anyway.

Wrong again if you read the full report, it is because they refuse to take on the role of representing the arab muslims and Christians officially because the people have not selected them being from other nations.

Just another example of your ability to reason the facts being clouded by your NAZI JEW HATRED

 

[montelatici]

Nothing you wrote makes sense. You just make things up.

 

[Phoenall]

Nothing you wrote makes sense. You just make things up.

No that is you as shown by your cherry picked and manipulated cut and pastes of reports. The arab muslims refused to act in good faith and become party to the LoN mandate, then demanded the mandate be changed in their favour OR ELSE.

All in your links that you seem to have a problem reading when they go against your POV

 

[P F Tinmore]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Wrong as this OFFICIAL report states

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.
4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied 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, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill. blah, blah, blah.​

Typical response from a racist drunk.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nothing you wrote makes sense. You just make things up.

No that is you as shown by your cherry picked and manipulated cut and pastes of reports. The arab muslims refused to act in good faith and become party to the LoN mandate, then demanded the mandate be changed in their favour OR ELSE.

All in your links that you seem to have a problem reading when they go against your POV

The arab muslims refused to act in good faith and become party to the LoN mandate,​

Indeed, and they stated many times that the were not going to legitimize that scam.