Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, it depends on the clarity of vision one has on causal effects and ramifications.

Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.

Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Community (World-Wide) came to understand that they would not be safe anywhere but in a domain to which they were not the minority --- and --- being totally dependent on the rule of the majority to which there was no justice. The Dreyfus Affair (1894) made it absolutely clear that the mob mentality of anti-Semitism ruled and Jews were expendable. And while the educated elite did not want to recognize it and agree, they knew deep down it was true. Both the non-Jewish Ruling Elite (to their shame) and the Jewish People came to realize that Jewish People (everywhere) would not be safe from arbitrary antisemitism under the color of law, unless the Jewish People had their own country. While the French government, with the shame of the Dreyfus Affair still fresh, even with a 1906 civilian court that overturned the conviction, the French Army did not renounce the conviction until 1995 --- a century later. This, coincidentally, was about the time of the Oslo Accords.

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - surrendered, it was to the Allied Powers...

• The Armistice of Mudros, which was concluded on 30 October 1918; Clause 16 --- Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.
• The Treaty of Sevres, which was concluded on 10 August 1920; Article 132 --- Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
• The Treaty of Lausanne, which was concluded 24 July 1924 (into force between the High Contracting Parties who have thus ratified it), Article I6 --- Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

IT WAS NOT BRITAN's MISTAKE ALONE. If indeed there was a mistake made.

There is no mistake. The intention was replicated three times, in three different instruments. Britain's Policy not withstanding, the San Remo Agreement between post-World War I Allied Powers was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (territorial boundaries were not decided until four years after).

The emphasis is on the fact that the ALLIED POWERS agreed, as a collectively body, that it was in the best interest of the world community and humanity that some portion of the captured territory be allotted to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; under the legal authority of the Allied Powers as exercising customary law for territory that the Allied Powers have the Title and Right.

With all Muslim and Christian countries in the world, who would begrudge the Jewish People a sliver of territory to establish their enclave? (RHETORICAL) Only the Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.

Without that there would not be war.

And once again you spout this LIE that you have no evidence for, only islamonazi propaganda and lies

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time (like the very 50 min video) presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed (among others) niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on. The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

(QUESTION)

How else should the world portray them? It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other (non-violent) heroes. There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut. While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America. Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.

​

(COMMENT)

Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with --- is that the 100 Years War (all works of fiction must have a catchy title) and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration. In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine. That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history. That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions (we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians).

The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood. The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians --- killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.

But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.

This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time (like the very 50 min video) presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed (among others) niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on. The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

(QUESTION)

How else should the world portray them? It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other (non-violent) heroes. There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut. While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America. Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.

​

(COMMENT)

Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with --- is that the 100 Years War (all works of fiction must have a catchy title) and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration. In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine. That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history. That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions (we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians).

The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood. The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians --- killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.

But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.

This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
Most Respectfully,
R

Your usual slime the Palestinians bullshit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time (like the very 50 min video) presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed (among others) niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on. The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

(QUESTION)

How else should the world portray them? It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other (non-violent) heroes. There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut. While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America. Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.

​

(COMMENT)

Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with --- is that the 100 Years War (all works of fiction must have a catchy title) and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration. In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine. That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history. That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions (we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians).

The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood. The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians --- killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.

But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.

This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
Most Respectfully,
R

Of course you ducked my post.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time (like the very 50 min video) presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed (among others) niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on. The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

(QUESTION)

How else should the world portray them? It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other (non-violent) heroes. There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut. While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America. Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.

​

(COMMENT)

Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with --- is that the 100 Years War (all works of fiction must have a catchy title) and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration. In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine. That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history. That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions (we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians).

The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood. The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians --- killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.

But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.

This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
Most Respectfully,
R

Of course you ducked my post.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​

Ah. Retreat to a conspiracy theory.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time (like the very 50 min video) presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed (among others) niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on. The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

(QUESTION)

How else should the world portray them? It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other (non-violent) heroes. There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut. While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America. Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.

​

(COMMENT)

Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with --- is that the 100 Years War (all works of fiction must have a catchy title) and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration. In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine. That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history. That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions (we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians).

The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood. The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians --- killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.

But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.

This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
Most Respectfully,
R

1. Why aren't the Palestinians regarded the same way the the Irish freedom fighters like the Fenians, the Clan and the Skirmishers between the 1860s and 1900, who bombed and killed the British civilians in Ireland and in Britain? They were after all, funded by Americans and received much of their training in the U.S. The tactics of the Irish republicans were exactly the same as those of the Palestinians, in fact, they were probably more brutal.

2. The Balfour Declaration was a declaration of war against the native inhabitants of Palestine. It envisioned the transfer of European colonial settlers to Palestine, under the protection of the British to establish Jewish minority rule over the native inhabitants until enough Jews could be flooded into the country to establish a Jewish majority. That is a declaration of war.

3. Every attempt at establishing self-government by the native muslim and Christian Palestinians was blocked by the British. This was admitted to in A/364 the "partition resolution"

"...opinion of Mr. Churchill, while addressing the House of Commons on 23 May 1939, that the intention of the 1922 White Paper was "to make it clear that the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine was to be subordinated to the paramount pledge and obligation of establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine..."

A/364 of 3 September 1947

By subordinating the establishment of self-governing institutions for the native inhabitants to those of the Jews, made it impossible for the Muslims and Christians to establish self-governing institutions. The British only allowed the Jews to establish such institutions. This is just fact, Riocco, not your propaganda and lies.

4. To this end, the colonial power, Britain, with their superior military might, crushed the Palestinian attempts at achieving independence through violent insurrection killing 105 of the Muslim and Christian population during 1936-1939 revolt. This was all done on behalf of the Jews.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To have ducked the question on "heist" (as accused), it presupposes that a crime was committed. That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something (implied territory) had occurred.

Of course you ducked my post.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​

(COMMENT)

This is a conspiracy theory of sorts. It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory. The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers. [(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)].

More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or --- "Without that there would not be war." So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war." But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory.

There you go with the typical colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To have ducked the question on "heist" (as accused), it presupposes that a crime was committed. That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something (implied territory) had occurred.

Of course you ducked my post.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​

(COMMENT)

This is a conspiracy theory of sorts. It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory. The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers. [(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)].

More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or --- "Without that there would not be war." So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war." But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course they had complete right and title, as the inhabitants as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Who else?

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

 

[toomuchtime_]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To have ducked the question on "heist" (as accused), it presupposes that a crime was committed. That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something (implied territory) had occurred.

Of course you ducked my post.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​

(COMMENT)

This is a conspiracy theory of sorts. It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory. The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers. [(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)].

More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or --- "Without that there would not be war." So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war." But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course they had complete right and title, as the inhabitants as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Who else?

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

lol Not a good reader? This is an argument in support of colonizing the area.

 

[montelatici]

No, you have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to not understand the definition of the word "inhabitant' and the term "sacred trust". LOL

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, you have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to not understand the definition of the word "inhabitant' and the term "sacred trust". LOL

lol A colony. The article says the people there are too primitive to manage their own affairs and need to be governed by a more advanced power. This is also the document that promised to create a Jewish homeland in the Mandate. There simply is no basis in history, logic or law for claiming Israel is illegitimate or that only Arabs or Muslims have rights there.

 

[montelatici]

You confuse the word "tutelage" with "governing".

The native inhabitants had all the rights in Palestine. Not European invaders. The new resolution has complete basis in history, logic and law. You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. None of your Hasbara propaganda changes fact. Go away dummy.

 

[Hollie]

You confuse the word "tutelage" with "governing".

The native inhabitants had all the rights in Palestine. Not European invaders. The new resolution has complete basis in history, logic and law. You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. None of your Hasbara propaganda changes fact. Go away dummy.

You remain confused as a function of your own befuddlement.

I find no historical (or in your case, hysterical), evidence of a European invasion of some imaginary "country" you call Pal'istan.

It's just remarkable how far removed historical facts are from your invention of events.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You confuse the word "tutelage" with "governing".

The native inhabitants had all the rights in Palestine. Not European invaders. The new resolution has complete basis in history, logic and law. You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. None of your Hasbara propaganda changes fact. Go away dummy.

Your confusion is so deep and profound, I despair of ever getting you to see how wrong you are. This is the argument that was used to create the Mandate, effectively a British colony in Palestine. Unwittingly, you are arguing in favor of an article that says the Palestinians are unfit to govern themselves and need to be governed by an advanced nation, in this case, Britain.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time (like the very 50 min video) presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed (among others) niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on. The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

(QUESTION)

How else should the world portray them? It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other (non-violent) heroes. There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut. While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America. Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.

​

(COMMENT)

Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with --- is that the 100 Years War (all works of fiction must have a catchy title) and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration. In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine. That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history. That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions (we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians).

The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood. The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians --- killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.

But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.

This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
Most Respectfully,
R

Your usual slime the Palestinians bullshit.

No the usual telling the truth about tee palestinians reality that you cant deny. So you come out with your usual inept phrase that means nothing.


How about some input from you to disprove all that is written above ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time (like the very 50 min video) presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed (among others) niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on. The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

(QUESTION)

How else should the world portray them? It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other (non-violent) heroes. There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut. While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America. Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.

​

(COMMENT)

Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with --- is that the 100 Years War (all works of fiction must have a catchy title) and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration. In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine. That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history. That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions (we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians).

The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood. The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians --- killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.

But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.

This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
Most Respectfully,
R

Of course you ducked my post.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​

And you have failed to produce any evidence of your claim that can stand on its own feet. So you use islamonazi propaganda pieces as that is all you have

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time (like the very 50 min video) presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed (among others) niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on. The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

(QUESTION)

How else should the world portray them? It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other (non-violent) heroes. There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut. While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America. Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.

​

(COMMENT)

Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with --- is that the 100 Years War (all works of fiction must have a catchy title) and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration. In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine. That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history. That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions (we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians).

The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood. The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians --- killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.

But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.

This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
Most Respectfully,
R

1. Why aren't the Palestinians regarded the same way the the Irish freedom fighters like the Fenians, the Clan and the Skirmishers between the 1860s and 1900, who bombed and killed the British civilians in Ireland and in Britain? They were after all, funded by Americans and received much of their training in the U.S. The tactics of the Irish republicans were exactly the same as those of the Palestinians, in fact, they were probably more brutal.

2. The Balfour Declaration was a declaration of war against the native inhabitants of Palestine. It envisioned the transfer of European colonial settlers to Palestine, under the protection of the British to establish Jewish minority rule over the native inhabitants until enough Jews could be flooded into the country to establish a Jewish majority. That is a declaration of war.

3. Every attempt at establishing self-government by the native muslim and Christian Palestinians was blocked by the British. This was admitted to in A/364 the "partition resolution"

"...opinion of Mr. Churchill, while addressing the House of Commons on 23 May 1939, that the intention of the 1922 White Paper was "to make it clear that the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine was to be subordinated to the paramount pledge and obligation of establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine..."

A/364 of 3 September 1947

By subordinating the establishment of self-governing institutions for the native inhabitants to those of the Jews, made it impossible for the Muslims and Christians to establish self-governing institutions. The British only allowed the Jews to establish such institutions. This is just fact, Riocco, not your propaganda and lies.

4. To this end, the colonial power, Britain, with their superior military might, crushed the Palestinian attempts at achieving independence through violent insurrection killing 105 of the Muslim and Christian population during 1936-1939 revolt. This was all done on behalf of the Jews.

Your last cut and paste must be one of your "made up ones" as there is no mention like that in the link you provided.

The LoN invited the arab muslims to take an active part in the partition of the land too which they constantly refused. The only outcome that would have made sense then as now would have been to go with the original partition enforced by a UN military force stationed on the border of the Jewish national home. Then just keep pounding away at the arab muslim terrorists until they are wiped out

 

[Phoenall]

However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory.

There you go with the typical colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.

Then why dont you produce these rights that they had in 1917, and see what you come up with. Dont forget to give the date of the implementation of these rights, as "rights" are empowered by international and national laws

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To have ducked the question on "heist" (as accused), it presupposes that a crime was committed. That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something (implied territory) had occurred.

Of course you ducked my post.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​

(COMMENT)

This is a conspiracy theory of sorts. It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.

However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory. The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers. [(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)].

More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or --- "Without that there would not be war." So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war." But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course they had complete right and title, as the inhabitants as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Who else?

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

So why did the arab muslims infesting the mandate of palestine refuse to take part in this procedure. That is why they had no rights as they had forfeited them. Remember that little fact freddy and you will stop coming out wit stupid references that dont apply.



And why do you cut short the articles you cut and paste, is it because the parts missed will change your context and prove you wrong. As in here with the next part of article 22

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.


This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.