Israeli Apartheid

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yes, one of your "Intentionality fallacious" Fallacies. This is a variation of the theme that because there is no map of Israel from 1948, 1948, or 1949, the territory must belong to Palestinians. Just because there is NOT "A" - does not mean - ∴ "B".



This memorandum was an estoppel in front of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), preventing them from justifying future Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence under the guise of defending their state.


(COMMENT)

This is a propaganda effort that intentionally intended to "deliberately" disseminate deceptive information and/or propagate the false conclusion that the Arab Palestinians have some legitimate claim to sovereignty over the territory formerly under the administration initiated by the Mandate for Palestine by the Palestine Order in Council.

The British included the key for the HoAP to nullify the intent of the 25 February 48 memo. It said: "Immediately self-governing." As we have discussed many times before, the Arab Palestinians rejected more than a few times the various overtures by the British Commission for Palestine to participate in self-governing activities. However, the Jewish Agency took every advantage they were offered in this regard.

No Pro-Palestinian or Anti-Israeli argument can use the events of 1948 to justify violence based on this argument or by extension any defense for violence derived from this argument. This includes, but is not limited to the validity of the failed "All Palestine Government."

________________________
I apologize in advance for publishing the source.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

This is a propaganda effort that intentionally intended to "deliberately" disseminate deceptive information and/or propagate the false conclusion that the Arab Palestinians have some legitimate claim to sovereignty over the territory formerly under the administration initiated by the Mandate for Palestine by the Palestine Order in Council.

Nice duck.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yes, one of your "Intentionality fallacious" Fallacies. This is a variation of the theme that because there is no map of Israel from 1948, 1948, or 1949, the territory must belong to Palestinians. Just because there is NOT "A" - does not mean - ∴ "B".



This memorandum was an estoppel in front of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), preventing them from justifying future Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence under the guise of defending their state.


(COMMENT)

This is a propaganda effort that intentionally intended to "deliberately" disseminate deceptive information and/or propagate the false conclusion that the Arab Palestinians have some legitimate claim to sovereignty over the territory formerly under the administration initiated by the Mandate for Palestine by the Palestine Order in Council.

The British included the key for the HoAP to nullify the intent of the 25 February 48 memo. It said: "Immediately self-governing." As we have discussed many times before, the Arab Palestinians rejected more than a few times the various overtures by the British Commission for Palestine to participate in self-governing activities. However, the Jewish Agency took every advantage they were offered in this regard.

No Pro-Palestinian or Anti-Israeli argument can use the events of 1948 to justify violence based on this argument or by extension any defense for violence derived from this argument. This includes, but is not limited to the validity of the failed "All Palestine Government."

________________________
I apologize in advance for publishing the source.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

EXCERPT → UK Letter No. 52/195/48 From the UK Delegation to the UN said:


After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
SOURCE: Memorandum "A" to the UK Letter No. 52/195/48, SUBJECT: LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE,” dtd 25 Feb 1948

So then, If Britain turned Palestine over to the UN and the UN did not take it, then who got it?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Arab Apportionment
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

How foolish. You know who the recipients were. And you know why. The Arabs wanted to walk away with something.

EXCERPT → UK Letter No. 52/195/48 From the UK Delegation to the UN said:


After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
SOURCE: Memorandum "A" to the UK Letter No. 52/195/48, SUBJECT: LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE,” dtd 25 Feb 1948

So then, If Britain turned Palestine over to the UN and the UN did not take it, then who got it?

(COMMENT)

• Israel maintained their piece under independence.
• Jordan took their piece under occupation/ annexation (Palestinian approved)
• Egypt took their piece under Military Governorship

You will notice that the Arab Nations did not consult the Arab Palestinians. Nor did the Arab Nations give any of the territory back to the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

When Ahmed Tibi has been elected and served his first day in the Knesset,
he commented that he couldn't believe Arabs were defeated by "these people".

With such ex-generals, proof that Israeli victories through all these years, are rather a miracle.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Arab Apportionment
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

How foolish. You know who the recipients were. And you know why. The Arabs wanted to walk away with something.


(COMMENT)

• Israel maintained their piece under independence.
• Jordan took their piece under occupation/ annexation (Palestinian approved)
• Egypt took their piece under Military Governorship

You will notice that the Arab Nations did not consult the Arab Palestinians. Nor did the Arab Nations give any of the territory back to the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

You will notice with all the talk about Balfour, San Remo. Mandate where the Jews had the right to Palestine, when Britain left Palestine no land was transferred to a Jewish state. After the failed Resolution 181 that was never implemented, no land was transferred to a Jewish state. During the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements that ended the fighting in the 1948 war, it was all about Palestine. There was no mention of any land or borders for Israel.

That is the floor where I am standing.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This inquiry is a bit unreasonable. This is a variation on the theme called "Baconian fallacy."

1948, the most important year in Israel's history, and nobody made a map.

Could it be that Israel had no territory to define?

(RIDER TO EXPLANATION)

The response to the dilemma this challenge presents requires a bit of bluntness in the reply. I have seen this argument before and speaking in a gentlemanly tone is quite ineffective. It requires a bit of attitude that enjoys "common sense."

___________________________________​

(COMMENT)

The implication made here is based on the assumption that a specific kind of evidence (ie The Map) must be available for the “entire truth” to be revealed through that single piece of evidence (the Map). No Map - means - No Nation. Your implication is that → I cannot prove the existence of Israel in 1948 because I cannot find a map.

In 1948, the products of the cartographer were much more difficult back then, as opposed to the computer generation of today. In 1948, the line of demarcation was fluctuating by the day. That situation would make a map freshly made inaccurate in a matter of a few days; sometimes in a matter of a few hours. The demarcation lines were not formed until 1949. And even they were developed over months. Cartographers generally did not waste time in such situations until the frontiers were resolved.

If you want to question the formulation of the demarcations for Israel, then it is much easier to see that there were no demarcations in which the Arab Palestinians had any input at all. The Arab Palestinians were not considered a viable party to any agreement, or a partner to a party to the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Arab Apportionment
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This reply you have made is simply uncorrectable.

... when Britain left Palestine no land was transferred to a Jewish state.

(COMMENT)

This implies that the British had the authority to make a transfer. It did not. On the termination, the British had no further responsibility. It was a very clean political cut from a British Foreign Office perspective.

Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time in a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948; is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held but so far as His Majesty’s Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
SOURCE: Memorandum "A" to the UK Letter No. 52/195/48, SUBJECT: LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE,” dtd 25 Feb 1948

After the failed Resolution 181 that was never implemented,

(COMMENT)

For more than a decade, you have failed to accept the historical record on this point, and many others.

29-Nov-1947

Palestine plan of partition with economic union – General Assembly resolution 181

Boundaries and demarcation lines, Demographic issues, Hebron, Jerusalem, Middle East situation, Negotiations and agreements, Palestine question, Peace proposals and efforts, Population, Statehood-related

A/RES/181(II)

A/RES/181(II) is not a binding Resolution. It is a "Recommendation." And like all recommendations, it can be accepted or rejected without consequence.

17-May-1948

Palestine question – Palestine Commission adjourns sine die – Press release

Palestine question, Peace proposals and efforts

PAL/169

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."
During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

no land was transferred to a Jewish state.

(COMMENT)

This is probably the only piece of the response that could be considered correct.

During the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements that ended the fighting in the 1948 war, it was all about Palestine. There was no mention of any land or borders for Israel.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Agreements were military arrangements signed by military commands. They were not about "borders." However, one of the commonalities of each agreement was the fact that:

◈ Israel was a party to the agreements​

​

◈ Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the agreements​

That is the floor where I am standing.

(∑ Ω)

The floor you are standing on will not sustain your weight.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

A/RES/181(II) is not a binding Resolution. It is a "Recommendation."

A/RES/181(II) was not a binding Resolution recommending that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security Council did not. Without the Palestinian's approval the UN had no authority to partition Palestine.

 

[Ropey]

Why Allegations that Israel Is An 'Apartheid' State Are False under International Law

One of the most highly charged accusations aimed at the State of Israel today is that Israel is an “apartheid” State that engages in widespread, state-sanctione

papers.ssrn.com

The bottom line is this: Israel treats all of its citizens—be they Jew, Arab, or Druze—equally before the law, irrespective of any racial or ethnic differences. And, Israeli policies regarding application of military law, administrative detentions, defensive use of force, security check points, etc., in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are all lawful security measures permitted under the Law of Armed Conflict. Accordingly, Israel’s actions are the very antithesis of apartheid, which should put to rest the apartheid lie once and for all.

Even if those who want to push the Jews into the sea still spout their hatred.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Arab Apportionment
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This reply you have made is simply uncorrectable.

(COMMENT)

This implies that the British had the authority to make a transfer. It did not. On the termination, the British had no further responsibility. It was a very clean political cut from a British Foreign Office perspective.




(COMMENT)

For more than a decade, you have failed to accept the historical record on this point, and many others.

29-Nov-1947

Palestine plan of partition with economic union – General Assembly resolution 181

Boundaries and demarcation lines, Demographic issues, Hebron, Jerusalem, Middle East situation, Negotiations and agreements, Palestine question, Peace proposals and efforts, Population, Statehood-related

A/RES/181(II)

A/RES/181(II) is not a binding Resolution. It is a "Recommendation." And like all recommendations, it can be accepted or rejected without consequence.

17-May-1948

Palestine question – Palestine Commission adjourns sine die – Press release

Palestine question, Peace proposals and efforts

PAL/169

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."
During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

(COMMENT)

This is probably the only piece of the response that could be considered correct.


(COMMENT)

The Armistice Agreements were military arrangements signed by military commands. They were not about "borders." However, one of the commonalities of each agreement was the fact that:

◈ Israel was a party to the agreements​

​

◈ Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the agreements​

(∑ Ω)

The floor you are standing on will not sustain your weight.

Most Respectfully,
R

The floor you are standing on will not sustain your weight.

My floor is that up through 1949 Israel acquired no territory.

This begs the question as to when and how did Israel acquire the territory it claims to possess?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Establishment of "Eretz-Israel"
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The thinking:

WE… BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.​

There was no land grant or presentation of territory.

My dear Mr. President: I have the honor to notify you that the State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that the Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.​

​

The Act of Independence will become effective one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948 Washington time.​

____​

My floor is that up through 1949 Israel acquired no territory.

This begs the question as to when and how did Israel acquire the territory it claims to possess?

(COMMENT)

The interpretation of much of the dialog in 1948 is misunderstood. The creation of Eretz-Israel was not authorized by any outside influence (ie The United States or the United Nations, etc). The creation of the state was a matter of self-determination.

The Application of Self-Determination Theory (SDT): The ability of the Jewish People to take such action by a choice to form their own nation.​

The Application of Tacit Approval: Is a form of Acquiescence → in which "consent to a rule is not in the form of positive statements or action, but takes the form of ‘silence or absence of protest in circumstances.​

The Jewish People in 1948 to it upon themselves to exercise the Right of Self-Determination. And while A/RES/25/2625 (XXV) would not be written for another two decades, the principle still applies.

• The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples (Excerpt from the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.)
  
  • By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

While we constantly hear the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the associate anti-Israelis and promoters of armed conflict, the outcomes formed in the choices and actions made by the Jewish People have been largely successful in the establishment of a nation that is the most successful in the Region. Similarly, the rejection by the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the associate anti-Israelis and promoters of armed conflict, of the many overtures to participate in the development of self-governing institutions have made them one of the least successful groups of people since the beginning of the 20th Century.

Recognition of the Right of Self-Determination is a two-way street. For the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the associate anti-Israelis and promoters of armed conflict to properly claim the Right of Self-Determination, they must recognize the same rights for the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Establishment of "Eretz-Israel"
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The thinking:

WE… BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.​

There was no land grant or presentation of territory.

My dear Mr. President: I have the honor to notify you that the State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that the Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.​

​

The Act of Independence will become effective one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948 Washington time.​

____​

(COMMENT)

The interpretation of much of the dialog in 1948 is misunderstood. The creation of Eretz-Israel was not authorized by any outside influence (ie The United States or the United Nations, etc). The creation of the state was a matter of self-determination.

The Application of Self-Determination Theory (SDT): The ability of the Jewish People to take such action by a choice to form their own nation.​

The Application of Tacit Approval: Is a form of Acquiescence → in which "consent to a rule is not in the form of positive statements or action, but takes the form of ‘silence or absence of protest in circumstances.​

The Jewish People in 1948 to it upon themselves to exercise the Right of Self-Determination. And while A/RES/25/2625 (XXV) would not be written for another two decades, the principle still applies.

• The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples (Excerpt from the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.)
  • By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

While we constantly hear the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the associate anti-Israelis and promoters of armed conflict, the outcomes formed in the choices and actions made by the Jewish People have been largely successful in the establishment of a nation that is the most successful in the Region. Similarly, the rejection by the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the associate anti-Israelis and promoters of armed conflict, of the many overtures to participate in the development of self-governing institutions have made them one of the least successful groups of people since the beginning of the 20th Century.

Recognition of the Right of Self-Determination is a two-way street. For the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the associate anti-Israelis and promoters of armed conflict to properly claim the Right of Self-Determination, they must recognize the same rights for the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Application of Self-Determination Theory (SDT): The ability of the Jewish People to take such action by a choice to form their own nation.

Self determination applies to the natives not to foreigners.

The Application of Tacit Approval: Is a form of Acquiescence → in which "consent to a rule is not in the form of positive statements or action, but takes the form of ‘silence or absence of protest in circumstances.

There was no tacit approval. The Palestinians had been protesting for years.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Recognition of the Right of Self-Determination is a two-way street. For the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the associate anti-Israelis and promoters of armed conflict to properly claim the Right of Self-Determination, they must recognize the same rights for the Jewish People.

Link?

 

[Ropey]

Become educated on the facts about Israel and why Eretz is not an apartheid state with these videos and articles.

The Myth of Israeli Apartheid
Is Israel an Apartheid State?
No Lie Shall Prosper
Palestinian Apartheid
The Ask Project
Sarah Zoabi: Proud Muslim Zionist
HERE IS ISRAEL - Israel Apartheid by Ari Lesser

10 Reasons Israel Is Not An 'Apartheid' State
Why Israel Is Nothing Like Apartheid South Africa
Deconstructing Israeli Apartheid
The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheid, Robbie Sabel, JCPA
The Apartheid Smear comprehensive resource

Or continue to smoke the crack pipe and further your false hope.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Establishment of "Eretz-Israel"
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are hilarious!

There was no tacit approval. The Palestinians had been protesting for years.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish People did not consult with any Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) on any matter related to Statehood.

And no nation stood up to take any direct action, in protest on the establishment of a self-governing institution (Statehood for Israel). Even the HoAP rejected overtures in that regard. And that is a form of tacit approval. Even the intervention of the Arab States ultimately worked against the HoAP.

In any event, and without regard to HoAP arguments to the contrary, the interpretation of the establishment of Israel is a fact. The State of Israel is a reality. Whereas, the HoAP have made a complete mess of their greedy little attempt to grab power, money, and influence in the region. They are totally dependent on donor contributions and could not exist without those sponsors.

Self determination applies to the natives not to foreigners.

(COMMENT)

The principle of Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. I suggest you read the Cornell Law School excerpt from the Legal Information Institute on the matter.

The issue of "foreigners" is not a consideration. And the legal definition of a "native" relative to the 20th Century groundwork is still controversial. Remember: The Mandate for Palestine states:

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;​

(∑ Ω)

I suggest you READ the links. It might keep you from making the mistakes your seem to be stuck on.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Establishment of "Eretz-Israel"
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are hilarious!


(COMMENT)

The Jewish People did not consult with any Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) on any matter related to Statehood.

And no nation stood up to take any direct action, in protest on the establishment of a self-governing institution (Statehood for Israel). Even the HoAP rejected overtures in that regard. And that is a form of tacit approval. Even the intervention of the Arab States ultimately worked against the HoAP.

In any event, and without regard to HoAP arguments to the contrary, the interpretation of the establishment of Israel is a fact. The State of Israel is a reality. Whereas, the HoAP have made a complete mess of their greedy little attempt to grab power, money, and influence in the region. They are totally dependent on donor contributions and could not exist without those sponsors.


(COMMENT)

The principle of Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. I suggest you read the Cornell Law School excerpt from the Legal Information Institute on the matter.

The issue of "foreigners" is not a consideration. And the legal definition of a "native" relative to the 20th Century groundwork is still controversial. Remember: The Mandate for Palestine states:

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;​

(∑ Ω)

I suggest you READ the links. It might keep you from making the mistakes your seem to be stuck on.

Most Respectfully,
R

The issue of "foreigners" is not a consideration. And the legal definition of a "native" relative to the 20th Century groundwork is still controversial.

You seem to be hung up on a very simple principle when it comes to foreigners.

Do the French have the right to self determination in France? Yes they do. They are the natives.

Do the French have the right to self determination in Britain? No they don't. They are foreigners.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Establishment of "Eretz-Israel"
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You seem to be hung up on a very simple principle when it comes to foreigners.

Do the French have the right to self determination in France? Yes they do. They are the natives.

Do the French have the right to self determination in Britain? No they don't. They are foreigners.

(∑ Ω)

Apples and Oranges

The territory had not been under Palestinians for more than a millennium. Whereas, the countries of England and France have been sovereign for more than a millennium.

And, Great Britain had its Anglo • Saxon and Norman Conflict issues, just as they had with the Vikings (pre-Norwegians). And then there was Joan of Arc and the 100d Years' War.

Stop trying to compare the issue of Arab Palestinian sovereignty with other conflicts.

IF you are going to stand up for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence,

THEN stand tall and fight your own battle. Don't be a crybaby and whine about what others accomplished.

Be your own people and make your own arguments. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have been playing very poor politics for more than a century. We know this how? Because they have not made any progress. In fact, an argument could be made that the HoAP has lost more ground than they have liberated. (A good question is - What have the HoAP actually liberated?)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Establishment of "Eretz-Israel"
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(∑ Ω)

Apples and Oranges

The territory had not been under Palestinians for more than a millennium. Whereas, the countries of England and France have been sovereign for more than a millennium.

And, Great Britain had its Anglo • Saxon and Norman Conflict issues, just as they had with the Vikings (pre-Norwegians). And then there was Joan of Arc and the 100d Years' War.

Stop trying to compare the issue of Arab Palestinian sovereignty with other conflicts.

IF you are going to stand up for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence,

THEN stand tall and fight your own battle. Don't be a crybaby and whine about what others accomplished.

Be your own people and make your own arguments. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have been playing very poor politics for more than a century. We know this how? Because they have not made any progress. In fact, an argument could be made that the HoAP has lost more ground than they have liberated. (A good question is - What have the HoAP actually liberated?)

Most Respectfully,
R

Ahhh, the old there never was a Palestine trope.

What was incorrect about my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian Attorney Noura Erakat: The U.S. Is Normalizing Apartheid by Hosting Israel's President​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli Apartheid
SUBTOPIC: Establishment of "Eretz-Israel"
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Ahhh, the old there never was a Palestine trope.

What was incorrect about my post?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians are just whining about their poor political gamesmanship which placed them in such a position in which they find themselves; NOT having a legitimate claim.

The territory in question, the carve-out often described as being from the River to the Sea, was never under Hostile Arab Palestinian sovereignty. In fact, they lost the West Bank twice because the sovereign timeline went from 7th Century and one of the first Caliphates (pre-Ottoman) (changing hands several times) to the early 20th Century when it came under the Mandate. The Arab Palestinians rejected several times, participation in the establishment of self-governing institutions. No matter what the reasoning the Arab Palestinians came to in the justification of each rejection and (taking for more than a century) the uncooperative attitude they adopted in their political position, the fact is that the Jewish Agency (while not agreeing with the British High Commissioner on every issue) took every advantage offered. The difference in the two paths played a significant role in the developmental outcomes of the two sides.

You ask: "What was incorrect about my post?" It is based on a failed political posture that has brought the Hostile Arab Palestinians right through to the financially corrupt and politically ineffective leadership they have today.

Most Respectfully,
R