Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Hollie]

Oh, you mean reading facts rather than propaganda. LOL

Oh my. You mean your cutting and pasting of the same articles is somehow an excuse for your inability to address the failures of Arabs-Moslems? LOL.

The facts are that Arabs-Moslems have consistently failed to achieve what others have managed. So, yeah, those facts.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

A negotiation implies that each party has something of value that the other wants and will trade for.

We are talking about Palestinian Christians and Muslims. And, the British refused to negotiate with them, in writing.

(QUESTIONS)

•• What required the British to negotiate?

•• When did the British refuse to negotiate; over what specific item?

(COMMENT)

Normally, senior members of the Allied Powers do not negotiate with hostiles holding peace hostage. That would be a form of coercion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh, you mean reading facts rather than propaganda. LOL

Oh my. You mean your cutting and pasting of the same articles is somehow an excuse for your inability to address the failures of Arabs-Moslems? LOL.

The facts are that Arabs-Moslems have consistently failed to achieve what others have managed. So, yeah, those facts.

When not under occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, this is misinformation.

"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.....

(COMMENT)

that is correct. None of the Allied Powers, or Councils within the League of Nations, were actually empowered to make any offers or binding decisions with regard to the Future of Palestine. That would be more closely negotiating with yourself. The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory.

BTW, this is the very issue that P F Tinmore brings up quite frequently. Under what authority did the delegation have to negotiate anything in the name of the Palestinians? When was the authority granted and by what mechanism?

"Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine..."

(COMMENT)

So what requires a Representative of the Allied Powers, or the Mandatory, to negotiate with an unempowered entity having no legal authority?

"Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine."

(COMMENT)

There you go. Negotiations are usually between authorities that are competent. The Arab Palestinians had refused to participate in the tutelage and self-government process at least 3 time by late 1923.

UK History of Administration -- Paragraph 23

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 th status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
​

The Arab Palestinians cannot have it both ways.. They cannot reject participation and the complain they are not recognized.

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)

Of the six members of the Palestinian Delegation to London, 2 were Christians.

(COMMENT)

The religious affiliation of a delegation and its members makes has little or no impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah and this is misleading.

Oh, you mean reading facts rather than propaganda. LOL

Oh my. You mean your cutting and pasting of the same articles is somehow an excuse for your inability to address the failures of Arabs-Moslems? LOL.

The facts are that Arabs-Moslems have consistently failed to achieve what others have managed. So, yeah, those facts.

When not under occupation.

(COMMENT)

These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace. Ever HRH Queen Rania was actually born in Kuwait and went school outside a Hostile Palestinian Influence.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip can start a productive footing and beneficial economic and commercial process by focusing so much energy of hostile activity and propaganda. The quarantine of the Hostile Arab Palestinians is a consequence of there pattern of past threatening and criminal behaviors. They wanted the quarantine and they got it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

So what requires a Representative of the Allied Powers, or the Mandatory, to negotiate with an unempowered entity having no legal authority?

Interesting political opinion.

Typical colonial power not to recognize the natives.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There you go. Negotiations are usually between authorities that are competent. The Arab Palestinians had refused to participate in the tutelage and self-government process at least 3 time by late 1923.

Your typical load of crap.

 

[P F Tinmore]

These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.

Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

A negotiation implies that each party has something of value that the other wants and will trade for.

We are talking about Palestinian Christians and Muslims. And, the British refused to negotiate with them, in writing.

(QUESTIONS)

•• What required the British to negotiate?

•• When did the British refuse to negotiate; over what specific item?

(COMMENT)

Normally, senior members of the Allied Powers do not negotiate with hostiles holding peace hostage. That would be a form of coercion.

Most Respectfully,
R

The inhabitants of Palestine were the people that the Covenant of the League of Nations declared were those who were to be receive tutelage in order to achieve self-determination. They were not "hostiles".

The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.

What in the heck is the matter with you. Are you really that thick?

 

[Shusha]

From 1922

"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.....

"Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine..."

"Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine."

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)

Of the six members of the Palestinian Delegation to London, 2 were Christians.

Yes. I am familiar with the correspondence between the British government and the Palestine Arab Delegation. I've been able to spend a little time reviewing it this afternoon to refresh my memory. The correspondence reads remarkably like the discussion going on here on USMB a hundred years later. (Sigh).

You, like the Palestinians and Abbas currently, mistake negotiation for capitulation. The British and the Jewish people, then as now, were perfectly willing to enter into negotiations with the Arab Palestinians, as witnessed by the LENGTHY conversations exchanged. So you are entirely mistaken when you claim that there was a refusal to negotiate. There was a refusal to capitulate but the negotiation is apparent in the conversations.

The Arabs in Palestine were not actively prevented from negotiating self-determination, as separate from self-determination of the Jewish people. They were prevented from demanding that Arab self-determination was conditional on the prevention of Jewish self-determination.

 

[Shusha]

These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.

Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.

Translation: The mere presence of Jews makes them violent. Jews fault.

 

[Shusha]

The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.

Not so. And very clear in the correspondence. The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor. The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.

Not so. And very clear in the correspondence. The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor. The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.

Indeed, that would interrupt the colonial project.

 

[P F Tinmore]

These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.

Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.

Translation: The mere presence of Jews makes them violent. Jews fault.

Not true. They had been living with Jews for hundreds of years.

 

[Shusha]

The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.

Not so. And very clear in the correspondence. The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor. The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.

Indeed, that would interrupt the colonial project.

Ok. So let's be clear here. The Arab purpose is NOT to achieve independence but to prevent Jewish self-determination, self-government and independence.

Seriously. This is Team Palestine's GOAL. Why don't you just own up to it and freaking say it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.

Not so. And very clear in the correspondence. The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor. The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.

Indeed, that would interrupt the colonial project.

Ok. So let's be clear here. The Arab purpose is NOT to achieve independence but to prevent Jewish self-determination, self-government and independence.

Seriously. This is Team Palestine's GOAL. Why don't you just own up to it and freaking say it?

 

[Shusha]

These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.

Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.

Translation: The mere presence of Jews makes them violent. Jews fault.

Not true. They had been living with Jews for hundreds of years.

So what CHANGED, then?! If it wasn't the mere presence of Jews -- what was it?

Come on! Say it! It was the fact that Jews (gasp! the HORROR!) wanted to have self-determination and self-government and independence exactly the same as all the Arabs wanted. How dare they?!

 

[Shusha]

The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.

Not so. And very clear in the correspondence. The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor. The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.

Indeed, that would interrupt the colonial project.

Ok. So let's be clear here. The Arab purpose is NOT to achieve independence but to prevent Jewish self-determination, self-government and independence.

Seriously. This is Team Palestine's GOAL. Why don't you just own up to it and freaking say it?

Got nothing, huh?

The correspondence was not an appeal to Palestinian Arab self-determination, it was an appeal to prevent Jewish self-determination.

If you disagree -- make a point.

 

[P F Tinmore]

These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.

Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.

Translation: The mere presence of Jews makes them violent. Jews fault.

Not true. They had been living with Jews for hundreds of years.

So what CHANGED, then?! If it wasn't the mere presence of Jews -- what was it?

Come on! Say it! It was the fact that Jews (gasp! the HORROR!) wanted to have self-determination and self-government and independence exactly the same as all the Arabs wanted. How dare they?!

The Palestinians wanted self determination in Palestine.

The Jews wanted self determination in Palestine.

You don't see a problem.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians wanted self determination in Palestine.

The Jews wanted self determination in Palestine.

You don't see a problem.

You have just managed to sum up a year of discussion between you and I. And a decade of me having this discussion on forums. And a hundred years of conflict.

NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.

You see a problem. The Palestinians see a problem. Because to them (and you) it is a zero sum game.

Self-determination is not determined by the size of the sandbox in which you are self-determinative. Both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people can have a sandbox. The fact that I have a sandbox does not in ANY way prohibit you from also having a sandbox.

The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.