Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[MJB12741]

The British elected not to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims of Palestine in the development of self-governing programs. The Covenant of the League of Nations, article 22 required that the Mandatory provide the tutelage to enable the "inhabitants" to achieve self-government. What in the hell do you not understand, dimwit?

Wait. Applied equally, that means the LoN was required to provide tutelage to enable the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to develop their own self-governments. There should be FIVE Jewish States and not just one.

Well, let's get on that immediately. When do we start removing Arab settlers from Jewish land in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq?

Excellent point. And Israel even has Palestinians in the Knesset with equal voting rights. How many Jews are represented in Arab country governments?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is entirely incorrect. The idea that the Arab Palestinian expressed nearly a century ago, is the same as it essential is today: They want everything unconditionally (Territory, Political Control, Economic Resources, etc) from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They do not see the need for negotiation. They want it and demand it be surrendered to them.

This is a REJECTION of every other notion. In effect, this is a position of continuous conflict. The Government of Israel is not going to forfeit its blood and treasury to uncompromising Arabs; no restitution, claim settlements, reparations or any other blackmail demand for peace.

The British elected not to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims of Palestine in the development of self-governing programs. The Covenant of the League of Nations, article 22 required that the Mandatory provide the tutelage to enable the "inhabitants" to achieve self-government. What in the hell do you not understand, dimwit?

(OBSERVATION)

Political History of Palestine under British Administration

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that
accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

The objective of His Majesty’s Government was then stated to be

“the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestine State….in which Arabs and Jews share in
government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.”
​

Al Jazeera World: Israel wants peace. Period. Opinion Page 13 SEP 13 by Israel Kasnett The writer is Magazine Editor of The Jerusalem Post.
Since 1947, Israel has pushed for peace with Arab neighbours but has been met with violence, says Israeli journalist.

Jerusalem - Israel wants peace. Period. The Jewish people have never held a desire to rule over others and this remains true today. Not only are we ohev shalom ["lovers of peace"], but we are also rodef shalom["active pursuers of peace"].

So news of a possible breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1993, through the framework of what became known as the Oslo Accords, was initially met with enthusiasm among the Israeli public.
​

Al Jazeera World: The price of Oslo

It quickly became clear however, that PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian people continued to seek the destruction of the Jewish state.
​

(COMMENT)

There was this writing, authored by DR Natasha Gill, research associate at Barnard College and a former professor of conflict studies at The New School University. She is the founder and director of TRACK4, which runs negotiation simulations for diplomats, mediators, journalists, policy makers, students and community leaders. "One of her contributions expresses this image of the Arab Palestinians (a subset of the Arabs) that is almost biblical sounding: "In the Beginning there was the NO."

This image is consistent and continuous. You look back to the first years of the Civilian Administration in Mandate Palestine, the period of the White Paper and Commission Wars, the period of the Partition Plan and the Rejections, and the late period of the Khartoum Resolution of 1 September 1967 and the Three "NO's." (NO peace with Israel, NO negotiations with Israel, NO recognition of Israel).

The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism." Even in its agreements, the outcome is "rejectionist." In the shadow of the Israeli-PLO agreements in the mid-1990's, the Arab-Palestinians recognize the existence of Israel, yet a Tsunami of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence occurred.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

I need to make a "correction FOR THE RECORD and an apology.

The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC. It is not the middle of the history.

(COMMENT)

The quoted first sentence is wrong; however the conclusion is correct. The first sentence show read:

The May 1948 Invasion by the Arab League marks the end of the NIAC and the beginning of the AIC.

Most Respectfully to All.
R

 

[MJB12741]

The British elected not to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims of Palestine in the development of self-governing programs. The Covenant of the League of Nations, article 22 required that the Mandatory provide the tutelage to enable the "inhabitants" to achieve self-government. What in the hell do you not understand, dimwit?

Wait. Applied equally, that means the LoN was required to provide tutelage to enable the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to develop their own self-governments. There should be FIVE Jewish States and not just one.

Well, let's get on that immediately. When do we start removing Arab settlers from Jewish land in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq?

Excellent point. And Israel even has Palestinians in the Knesset with equal voting rights. How many Jews are represented in Arab country governments?

Hello! Anybody home?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."

Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.

As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

I need to make a "correction FOR THE RECORD and an apology.

The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC. It is not the middle of the history.

(COMMENT)

The quoted first sentence is wrong; however the conclusion is correct. The first sentence show read:

The May 1948 Invasion by the Arab League marks the end of the NIAC and the beginning of the AIC.

Most Respectfully to All.
R

But Palestine was already under foreign attack.

 

[Hollie]

et al,

I need to make a "correction FOR THE RECORD and an apology.

The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC. It is not the middle of the history.

(COMMENT)

The quoted first sentence is wrong; however the conclusion is correct. The first sentence show read:

The May 1948 Invasion by the Arab League marks the end of the NIAC and the beginning of the AIC.

Most Respectfully to All.
R

But Palestine was already under foreign attack.

What a shame those foreign Arab-Moslem invaders were so ruthless in their treatment of the Arab-Moslem squatters and land grabbers.

 

[Hollie]

The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."

Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.

As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.

Indeed, your silly "colonial project" slogan is a fabrication. What a shame you choose to reinforce your ignorance of history with such slogans.

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

So, I ask again -- what year was the beginning of the conflict and what was the inciting event? 1875? 1917? 1922?

 

[Shusha]

Wait. Applied equally, that means the LoN was required to provide tutelage to enable the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to develop their own self-governments.

Where do you get this shit?

I get this shit from monte, who claims that the Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 22 requires the Mandatory to provide tutelage to the inhabitants to enable them to achieve self-government.

In his argument he is specifying that the Christian and Muslim inhabitants of "Palestine" did not receive that tutelage toward their self-government. Applied equally, the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq also did not receive the tutelage toward their self-government in these geographical areas, even though they and their ancestors have been living there for thousands of years.

So why are we not discussing Jewish self-determination, not only in Israel -- but also in Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon?

 

[Shusha]

You're kidding, yes? Jordan and Egypt used military force to take and hold territory clearly not under their sovereignty.

They entered Palestine. They did not invade Israel. The UN established armistice lines that were not borders and did not change the international borders.

Word games. They entered territory not under their sovereignty and used military force to take control of it.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well ... We agree that they had a policy of consistently rejecting participation in self-governing projects. We do not agree on the why.

The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."

Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.

As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.

(COMMENT)

You say "colonial project." I say you do not know what a "colonial project means." In my opinion a key component of a "Colonial Project" is that it is one political power involved in the colonization of another territory. This is not what happened at all.

• It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, facilitating the immigration of a completely separate culture seeking freedom from religious persecution.

• It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, establishing a National Home for the purpose of protecting and preserving a people in a territory that they could support and defend from the tyranny of the majority.

• It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, attempting to establish a political entity, that was beyond the abuse of a regional majority in its own best interests above of a minority that needs special protections.

• It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, to prevent the the corrupted regional majority from evicting a minority culture and people by twisting the intent of the Allied Powers and democratic principles under the color of law --- the intentional targeting of the religious minority for oppression.
​

CLEARLY --- as it concerned the Jewish People, it was not a case of the Allied Powers or a single appointed Mandatory, using the power and influence of the Allied Powers, to use the Jewish Immigration as an extension of territorial authority.

As for the suggestion that the Arab Palestinians are acting rationally, the same as any other country, that is probably not correct. But I will agree that it is very representative of what the Arab League Nations would do. But is an indefinite period of conflict really, in which the Arab Palestinians will have very little chance of development, actually worth the struggle. The life expectancy of an Arab Palestinian Male (West Bank) is 73 years old (2016 est). This means that in 5 years, all most every Arab Palestinian that might have experienced the 1948/1949 Israeli War of Independence will have died-off (less than 4% of the population is over 65 -- The Was started 68 years ago). It is not really understood what type of free lunch the younger Arab Palestinians are looking for. But it is not patriotic based. If it were, the Arab Palestinians would be looking for ways to open a meaningful dialog that would result in the gradual lifting of Article 43 HR Security Requirements. As it is, the cost of maintaining the security apparatus to maintain Article 43 (public order and safety) requirements is better than threat to Israeli citizenry, critical infrastructure and wellbeing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."

Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.

As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.

Indeed, your silly "colonial project" slogan is a fabrication. What a shame you choose to reinforce your ignorance of history with such slogans.

You would think that I made that up.

israeli settler colonialism - Google Search

israel colonialism - YouTube

 

[Shusha]

Its not colonialism. Its Jewish nationalism and the attempt to violently prevent it by the Arabs.

 

[Hollie]

The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."

Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.

As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.

Indeed, your silly "colonial project" slogan is a fabrication. What a shame you choose to reinforce your ignorance of history with such slogans.

You would think that I made that up.

israeli settler colonialism - Google Search

israel colonialism - YouTube

Well, if it's cut and paste from the web you want:

Europeans as Victims of (Muslim) Colonialism

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well ... We agree that they had a policy of consistently rejecting participation in self-governing projects. We do not agree on the why.

The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."

Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.

As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.

(COMMENT)

You say "colonial project." I say you do not know what a "colonial project means." In my opinion a key component of a "Colonial Project" is that it is one political power involved in the colonization of another territory. This is not what happened at all.

• It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, facilitating the immigration of a completely separate culture seeking freedom from religious persecution.

• It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, establishing a National Home for the purpose of protecting and preserving a people in a territory that they could support and defend from the tyranny of the majority.

• It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, attempting to establish a political entity, that was beyond the abuse of a regional majority in its own best interests above of a minority that needs special protections.

• It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, to prevent the the corrupted regional majority from evicting a minority culture and people by twisting the intent of the Allied Powers and democratic principles under the color of law --- the intentional targeting of the religious minority for oppression.
​

CLEARLY --- as it concerned the Jewish People, it was not a case of the Allied Powers or a single appointed Mandatory, using the power and influence of the Allied Powers, to use the Jewish Immigration as an extension of territorial authority.

As for the suggestion that the Arab Palestinians are acting rationally, the same as any other country, that is probably not correct. But I will agree that it is very representative of what the Arab League Nations would do. But is an indefinite period of conflict really, in which the Arab Palestinians will have very little chance of development, actually worth the struggle. The life expectancy of an Arab Palestinian Male (West Bank) is 73 years old (2016 est). This means that in 5 years, all most every Arab Palestinian that might have experienced the 1948/1949 Israeli War of Independence will have died-off (less than 4% of the population is over 65 -- The Was started 68 years ago). It is not really understood what type of free lunch the younger Arab Palestinians are looking for. But it is not patriotic based. If it were, the Arab Palestinians would be looking for ways to open a meaningful dialog that would result in the gradual lifting of Article 43 HR Security Requirements. As it is, the cost of maintaining the security apparatus to maintain Article 43 (public order and safety) requirements is better than threat to Israeli citizenry, critical infrastructure and wellbeing.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Christians and Muslims tried to participate in self-governing projects from the outset of the Mandate. The British, to avoid the possibility of non-Jewish (Christian and Muslim) self-government, refused to recognize the Palestinian leadership as representative of the inhabitants of Palestine, in writing and as a matter of policy. Only the Zionist Organization was recognized by the British as representative of the inhabitants.

The Zionist colonization of Palestine was recognized as a colonial project from the the beginning, even prior to the Mandate. Trying to claim it was not a colonial is just sheer stupidity on your part Rocco. An article about a Zionist Conference published in 1899 in the New York Times quotes a declaration from the conference indicating that the Zionists “will colonize Palestine."

Later in 1926, during the Mandate the Zionists the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the Zionists intend to colonize Palestine and beyond. The article also demonstrates that the colonization was, in fact, financed and supported by Britain through loans and military support in much the way India, Rhodesia and other British colonies were established.

"Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee"

July 25, 1926
London (Jul. 23)

The proposals submitted by the Zionist Executive were favorably considered by the British government, emphasis was laid on the allocation of land for Jewish colonization in Beisan and in Southern Palestine. He believes that favorable results will follow shortly, Dr. Weizmann declared. A profound change in the attitude of British public opinion in favor of Zionist is noticeable, Dr. Weizmann declared, pointing to the debate which took place Wednesday in the House of Commons concerning the proposed £4,500,000 loan of the Palestine government. This debate in Commons demonstrated an earnest and benevolent attitude toward Zionism on the part of all parties. The British government realizes that the crisis in Palestine is not the fault of Palestine alone, but it is rather a part of the general economic world crisis, Dr. Weizmann stated.

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. "


Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore

So, I ask again -- what year was the beginning of the conflict and what was the inciting event? 1875? 1917? 1922?

Pali terrorist supporters claim Israel started the conflict in 1948. Until then the Pali's were a peace loving people. So how do they explain this documented massacre of the Jews?

1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia

 

[montelatici]

Wiki? Documented? LOL

Even if true, why wouldn't the native inhabitants attack the European Jews whose intent was to colonize Palestine and expel the native people?

 

[Hollie]

Wiki? Documented? LOL

Even if true, why wouldn't the native inhabitants attack the European Jews whose intent was to colonize Palestine and expel the native people?

How did colonizing Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese (many of whom were absentee landlords), become "native 'Pal'istanian'?

 

[MJB12741]

Wiki? Documented? LOL

Even if true, why wouldn't the native inhabitants attack the European Jews whose intent was to colonize Palestine and expel the native people?

Oh now I get it. The Hebron Massacre IS NOTdocumented. Right Monte. Heh Heh!