Israel's Lies

[toastman]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, that is a common theme with you.

◈ Israel did NOT invade the territory of another state.​

◈ Israel did not fire the first shot.​

◈ Israel did not annexation by the use of force of "the territory of another State."​

There you go back to Israeli talking points.

(COMMENT)

I've not yet heard the Arab Palestinians take responsibility for any aspect of the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

◈ Israel did not fire the first shot.

So if somebody breaks into your house and you shoot him you are the aggressor because you fired the first shot?

That was a stupid thing to say.

From the same link I provided:

The first deaths of the 1947–49 Palestine war occurred on 30 November 1947 during an ambush of two buses carrying Jews.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, that is a common theme with you.

What is the Palestinian's responsibility?

It is not like they went to Europe and attack the Zionists.

(COMMENT)

Every "State" has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other "State;" that includes the entirety.

Your comment • "It is not like they went to Europe and attack the Zionists" • is very said indeed.

"Zionists" focuses on a political movement that supports the security, territorial integrity, and preservation of the Jewish National Home.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

Thanks!
But I wasn't looking for more justification for the formation of Israel.

 

[Hollie]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

 

[Hollie]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

That’s been done more than 200 times.

 

[toastman]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

 

[toastman]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Everything you post has been refuted.....multiple times, by multiple posters.
You simply just cannot accept the truth

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

It is well known when Israel occupied Palestine and that is where it ends.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Everything you post has been refuted.....multiple times, by multiple posters.
You simply just cannot accept the truth

Nothing refutes the documents.

 

[toastman]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

It is well known when Israel occupied Palestine and that is where it ends.

You must really like dancing, because all you’re doing is dancing around my posts.

Let’s try this again:


WHERE ARE YOUR LINKS ??

 

[toastman]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Everything you post has been refuted.....multiple times, by multiple posters.
You simply just cannot accept the truth

Nothing refutes the documents.

Everyone of your posts has been refuted. I don’t know why you choose to post here, when you truly know nothing of the Israel Palestine conflict excerpt what you want to believe.

 

[Hollie]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

It is well known when Israel occupied Palestine and that is where it ends.

Well known by whom? Another of your unsupported comments.

 

[Hollie]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Everything you post has been refuted.....multiple times, by multiple posters.
You simply just cannot accept the truth

Nothing refutes the documents.

Except the facts.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You don't read very well. You need to tell us how that is applicable to decisions made prior to and post-Treay Adoption.

The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

(COMMENT)

As far as the Principle of Succession goes, that is more economic than it is about political delineations. But, as far as the application to the territory that was defined as Palestine, there were NO "states" for which the "Principle of State Succession" would directly apply. This was the reason that the "Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions Case" went to the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) for settlement (See Series A - #5). It was a case that in the end, the Mandate was partitioned commensurate with the political condition of the day. The PCIJ was established as the court to resolve disputes.

There were no objections, by any party to the treaty, to the plans and policies used pertaining to the Mandate for Palestine → adopted and implemented over the territory in question. Nothing in the Wikipedia Article (Rules of Establishment), that you have cited, suggests that there is a contradiction to the decisions made relative to Palestine or Transjordan. Neither was an autonomous State detached from Turkey by the treaty. They were a compilation of administrative districts (Sanjaks in two different) of the Ottoman Empire.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

It is well known when Israel occupied Palestine and that is where it ends.

Israel, got bigger everytime the Arabs attacked.

Palestine........what's that again? An ever-shrinking maybe country......LOL!

 

[Street Juice]

The zionist Israeli pukes have created a gigantic lie to explain how their theft of other people's land wasn't really theft. ...

The Jews have been in the land of Israel that was promised to them by G-d, since before Israel had a king.

Further, they didn't 'steal' the land. The Arabs left when the attacking Arab armies threatened to kill them if they stayed. The Arabs that did not leave, are still in Israel with their property. The ones that left Israel when Israel needed to defend itself, lost their property.

If I was in your country, and fled to the country of an invading army, your country would take my property.

Israel is fertile ground.

It wasn't before The Jews made it bloom.

View attachment 369364

That's not true. A Palestinian friend used to describe his grandfathers olive groves.

View attachment 372636
That above... did not happen under the Arabs. The Bible says that the Jews will make the desert bloom. And it did.

Was there an isolated Olive grove somewhere? Sure. Keep in mind, that this was historic Jewish lands, stolen by Romans, exiled around the world, decimated by the Ottomans, and then returned by divine providence today.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

Interestingly, there are a number of Sheiks that admit that Islam supports Israel. Because of course, it does.

The Qur'an and the Land of Israel

My personal favorite, direct from the Qur'an

If God had willed, He would have made you one nation; but that He may try you in what has come to you. So be you forward in good works; unto God shall you return.… (5:54)

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

There has never been a time since the US became a country that Jews have not lived in New York State. Does that give them the right to dispossess everyone else, drive them into a concentration camp Gaza II, and establish an apartheid state in NY? Hmm..now that I think about it...

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Were the Jews living in New York 2,000 years ago? Was New York their ancient homeland for thousands of years? Was New York promised to the Jews in the Bible?

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Um..... Yeah. He did. That is exactly what G-d said would happen in Torah. That's what the prophets said would happen. That's even what Jesus himself said would happen. *AND*.... the regathering was predicted in Isaiah 11, and other places.

So the answer is..... yes. G-d willed that the Romans conquer Israel as punishment for breaking the promise made in the Torah, the book of Deuteronomy.

Everything that has happened to the Jews, and to the land of Israel, has happened exactly as G-d said it would, as predicted in the Bible. Everything.

If God says "xyz" will happen, then "xyz" will happen? If that's true then how can God get angry at the Jews and turn his face away from them for being disobedient? Aren't they just doing what God already foretold?

 

[Street Juice]

Nothing in the Wikipedia Article (Rules of Establishment), that you have cited, suggests that there is a contradiction to the decisions made relative to Palestine or Transjordan.

You can't trust Wikipedia on any subject having anything to do with Jews. Wikipedia knuckled under to the SPLC long ago when the SPLC successfully had many conservative editors purged.

 

[Street Juice]

The zionist Israeli pukes have created a gigantic lie to explain how their theft of other people's land wasn't really theft. ...

The Jews have been in the land of Israel that was promised to them by G-d, since before Israel had a king.

Further, they didn't 'steal' the land. The Arabs left when the attacking Arab armies threatened to kill them if they stayed. The Arabs that did not leave, are still in Israel with their property. The ones that left Israel when Israel needed to defend itself, lost their property.

If I was in your country, and fled to the country of an invading army, your country would take my property.

Israel is fertile ground.

It wasn't before The Jews made it bloom.

View attachment 369364

That's not true. A Palestinian friend used to describe his grandfathers olive groves.

View attachment 372636
That above... did not happen under the Arabs. The Bible says that the Jews will make the desert bloom. And it did.

Was there an isolated Olive grove somewhere? Sure. Keep in mind, that this was historic Jewish lands, stolen by Romans, exiled around the world, decimated by the Ottomans, and then returned by divine providence today.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

Interestingly, there are a number of Sheiks that admit that Islam supports Israel. Because of course, it does.

The Qur'an and the Land of Israel

My personal favorite, direct from the Qur'an

If God had willed, He would have made you one nation; but that He may try you in what has come to you. So be you forward in good works; unto God shall you return.… (5:54)

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

There has never been a time since the US became a country that Jews have not lived in New York State. Does that give them the right to dispossess everyone else, drive them into a concentration camp Gaza II, and establish an apartheid state in NY? Hmm..now that I think about it...

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Were the Jews living in New York 2,000 years ago? Was New York their ancient homeland for thousands of years? Was New York promised to the Jews in the Bible?

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Um..... Yeah. He did. That is exactly what G-d said would happen in Torah. That's what the prophets said would happen. That's even what Jesus himself said would happen. *AND*.... the regathering was predicted in Isaiah 11, and other places.

So the answer is..... yes. G-d willed that the Romans conquer Israel as punishment for breaking the promise made in the Torah, the book of Deuteronomy.

Everything that has happened to the Jews, and to the land of Israel, has happened exactly as G-d said it would, as predicted in the Bible. Everything.

If God says "xyz" will happen, then "xyz" will happen? If that's true then how can God get angry at the Jews and turn his face away from them for being disobedient? Aren't they just doing what God already foretold?

Also, there is something objectionable about the worship of a God who agrees to make you the Master Race as long as you are sufficiently slavish in your worship of him.