Jews trying to get Americans killed - as usual

[Roudy]

Not at all sure how Palestine never being a "state" helps israel's claim to the land, it wasn't a state either.

It was owned by the Ottoman Empire for 700 years, and then under the control of the British and French, who divided it as the conquerors. In other words the Arabs had jack to say about what was done to the land.

 

[Auldhippy]

Except Col McMahon (of those conquerors) offered the Palestinians autonomy in return for their aid and it was Palestinian beduin that T E Lawrence led to destroy the Ottoman trade routes to the Red Sea.

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman, et al,

"Palestine was defined by the Order in Council. The Territory under Mandate was short titled as Palestine. From 1922 to 1948, it was described by the Mandatory as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

montelatici, et al,

Ah, a slight of hand here.


(COMMENT)

That is technically correct. Not all counties are sovereign. In the case of England, it is a country, under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom; which is a Commonwealth realm.

The case of Palestine, "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing." It became sovereign in 1988; uncontested by the Occupying Power which allowed the Arab Palestinian to exercise self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

What was Palestine called from 1917 until 1988?
A region? Territory? Legal entity? All of them?

(COMMENT)

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

"The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.

In 1917, it was "enemy held territory of the Ottoman Empire."

In 1920, the administration of Palestine, was said to be "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers."

Today, the 1988 Arab State of Palestine, is defined by the general people as land in which the populations believes:

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine's final international border was set when the LoN approved Britain's proposed border between Palestine and Transjordan in 1922.

The Palestinian's nationality and citizenship were already determined by the time Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924.

Britain was temporarily assigned to Palestine to help the people achieve independence.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm! I'm not sure any of that is correct.

toastman, et al,

"Palestine was defined by the Order in Council. The Territory under Mandate was short titled as Palestine. From 1922 to 1948, it was described by the Mandatory as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

What was Palestine called from 1917 until 1988?
A region? Territory? Legal entity? All of them?

(COMMENT)

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

"The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.

In 1917, it was "enemy held territory of the Ottoman Empire."

In 1920, the administration of Palestine, was said to be "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers."

Today, the 1988 Arab State of Palestine, is defined by the general people as land in which the populations believes:

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine's final international border was set when the LoN approved Britain's proposed border between Palestine and Transjordan in 1922.

(COMMENT)

This depends on a couple of interpretation:
If you mean that there was an boundary between the Territory under Mandate west of the Jordan River, and the Territory under Mandate east of the Jordan River (AKA Trans-Jordan), then you would be correct.

Remember, the name on the Mandate is "Administration of "PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN." It was all one mandate. The Hashemite Kingdom was still being assembled.

• On May 15, 1923 (not 1922), Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.
• In May 1925, the Aqaba and Ma’an districts of the Hijaz became part of Transjordan.
• On March 22, 1946, new Anglo-Trans-Jordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan.
• May 25, 1946, the Trans-jordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah King, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Trans-Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

See the Government History Site on the Hashemite Kingdom for details.​

The Palestinian's nationality and citizenship were already determined by the time Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924.

(COMMENT)

If you mean the Citizenship and Nationality of the Territory under Mandate, then you would be correct. But there was no self-governing entity known as Palestine. The citizenship was initially granted under the Order in Council (1922) as amended by the citizenship law of 1925.

Britain was temporarily assigned to Palestine to help the people achieve independence.

(COMMENT)

What is "temporary?"

It is my understanding that the Palestinians Declared Independence in November 1988 pursuant to the 1947 Resolution; which was acknowledged the following month. The Palestinians rejected the option in January 1948.

Otherwise, I sorta see your points.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

toastman, et al,

"Palestine was defined by the Order in Council. The Territory under Mandate was short titled as Palestine. From 1922 to 1948, it was described by the Mandatory as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

What was Palestine called from 1917 until 1988?
A region? Territory? Legal entity? All of them?

(COMMENT)

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

"The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.

In 1917, it was "enemy held territory of the Ottoman Empire."

In 1920, the administration of Palestine, was said to be "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers."

Today, the 1988 Arab State of Palestine, is defined by the general people as land in which the populations believes:

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine's final international border was set when the LoN approved Britain's proposed border between Palestine and Transjordan in 1922.

The Palestinian's nationality and citizenship were already determined by the time Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924.

Britain was temporarily assigned to Palestine to help the people achieve independence.

Palestine has no borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm! I'm not sure any of that is correct.

toastman, et al,

"Palestine was defined by the Order in Council. The Territory under Mandate was short titled as Palestine. From 1922 to 1948, it was described by the Mandatory as a "legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs."

What was Palestine called from 1917 until 1988?
A region? Territory? Legal entity? All of them?

(COMMENT)

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

"The Mandate" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922.

In 1917, it was "enemy held territory of the Ottoman Empire."

In 1920, the administration of Palestine, was said to be "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers."

Today, the 1988 Arab State of Palestine, is defined by the general people as land in which the populations believes:

• Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

(COMMENT)

This depends on a couple of interpretation:
If you mean that there was an boundary between the Territory under Mandate west of the Jordan River, and the Territory under Mandate east of the Jordan River (AKA Trans-Jordan), then you would be correct.

Remember, the name on the Mandate is "Administration of "PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN." It was all one mandate. The Hashemite Kingdom was still being assembled.

• On May 15, 1923 (not 1922), Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.
• In May 1925, the Aqaba and Ma’an districts of the Hijaz became part of Transjordan.
• On March 22, 1946, new Anglo-Trans-Jordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan.
• May 25, 1946, the Trans-jordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah King, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Trans-Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

See the Government History Site on the Hashemite Kingdom for details.​

The Palestinian's nationality and citizenship were already determined by the time Palestine was separated from Turkey in 1924.

(COMMENT)

If you mean the Citizenship and Nationality of the Territory under Mandate, then you would be correct. But there was no self-governing entity known as Palestine. The citizenship was initially granted under the Order in Council (1922) as amended by the citizenship law of 1925.

Britain was temporarily assigned to Palestine to help the people achieve independence.

(COMMENT)

What is "temporary?"

It is my understanding that the Palestinians Declared Independence in November 1988 pursuant to the 1947 Resolution; which was acknowledged the following month. The Palestinians rejected the option in January 1948.

Otherwise, I sorta see your points.

Most Respectfully,
R

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.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

There was an and time envisioned determined by the success of the mandatory. Of course the mandate was a monumental flop and it failed in any of its goals.

It was a temporary administrative not an ownership position. The mandate did not own beans.

 

[Auldhippy]

Future Palestinian state

The Palestinian territories are part of the area intended by the United Nations to become the territory of the future State of Palestine.[41] Originally, a larger area was allotted to the planned Palestinian state in Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, but the Arabs rejected it and in the 1948 Palestine war, the Israeli army conquered major parts of it. While in the Partition Plan about 42% of historic Palestine was destined for the Arabic state, the Palestinian territories constitute only some 23%.[42] The last figure is including all space occupied by Israeli settlements, walls and roads.

In the UN, nearly all countries voted in favour of Resolution 58/292 of 17 May 2004; namely, that the boundaries of a future Palestinian state should be based on the pre-1967 borders, which correspond with the Green Line. The Resolution affirmed, in connection with the Palestinian right to self-determination and to sovereignty, that the independent State of Palestine should be based on the pre-1967 borders.[41] In Resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, the declaration of independence of the State of Palestine was acknowledged by the UN General Assembly,[43] but it was not admitted as a member state. In the same resolution, their sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territories was recognized.

On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly passed United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member state" by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions.[44][45]

Palestinian territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Auldhippy]

Law of Nations: War, whether won or lost, is not a legitimate aquisition of territory

 

[P F Tinmore]

Future Palestinian state

The Palestinian territories are part of the area intended by the United Nations to become the territory of the future State of Palestine.[41] Originally, a larger area was allotted to the planned Palestinian state in Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, but the Arabs rejected it and in the 1948 Palestine war, the Israeli army conquered major parts of it. While in the Partition Plan about 42% of historic Palestine was destined for the Arabic state, the Palestinian territories constitute only some 23%.[42] The last figure is including all space occupied by Israeli settlements, walls and roads.

In the UN, nearly all countries voted in favour of Resolution 58/292 of 17 May 2004; namely, that the boundaries of a future Palestinian state should be based on the pre-1967 borders, which correspond with the Green Line. The Resolution affirmed, in connection with the Palestinian right to self-determination and to sovereignty, that the independent State of Palestine should be based on the pre-1967 borders.[41] In Resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, the declaration of independence of the State of Palestine was acknowledged by the UN General Assembly,[43] but it was not admitted as a member state. In the same resolution, their sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territories was recognized.

On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly passed United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member state" by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions.[44][45]

Palestinian territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What people fail to mention is that Palestine was (is) a non self governing territory.

The people, contrary to popular propaganda, have inalienable rights:
The right to self determination without external interference.
The right to independence and sovereignty.
The right to territorial integrity.

Any denial of those rights is a violation of international law.

 

[Kondor3]

...On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly passed United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member state" by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions...

At the current rate of land-annexation by Israel...

Give it another couple of years...

Palestine with be the only non-member State with a land-mass smaller than that of the Vatican...

With Palestinians standing 5-deep on each others' shoulders...

More like a Clown Car than a State...

While the Israelis will be printing-up extra copies of that UN Resolution, to augment their supply of toilet paper...

 

[Kondor3]

Law of Nations: War, whether won or lost, is not a legitimate aquisition of territory

"Mister Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

 

[Kondor3]

Any denial of those rights is a violation of international law.

You can always sue them... or boycott them...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is an assessment. To some degree, it has validity.

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.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

There was an and time envisioned determined by the success of the mandatory. Of course the mandate was a monumental flop and it failed in any of its goals.

It was a temporary administrative not an ownership position. The mandate did not own beans.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree. If by ownership you mean sovereign control then --- I have to agree. But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either. Territorial control went to the Allied Powers and League of Nations, and not the indigenous population of the undefined sub-regions in from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia.

It is rather naive, in my opinion, to suggest that all the ills that befell the region we call Palestine, were the fault of the Mandatory (UK). The Arab Palestinian made little or no effort in the development of the territory. The general population was focused almost entirely on conflict as a means of resolution; pouring the vast majority of their resources into that endeavor.

The number of complaints the Palestinian writes per month is just pathetic and childlike in mentality. And the sheer numbers would level a small forest just to print.

If the Palestinian want to be a prosperous nation, then they have to change their way of life; focusing on that which promotes peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is an assessment. To some degree, it has validity.

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.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

There was an and time envisioned determined by the success of the mandatory. Of course the mandate was a monumental flop and it failed in any of its goals.

It was a temporary administrative not an ownership position. The mandate did not own beans.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree. If by ownership you mean sovereign control then --- I have to agree. But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either. Territorial control went to the Allied Powers and League of Nations, and not the indigenous population of the undefined sub-regions in from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia.

It is rather naive, in my opinion, to suggest that all the ills that befell the region we call Palestine, were the fault of the Mandatory (UK). The Arab Palestinian made little or no effort in the development of the territory. The general population was focused almost entirely on conflict as a means of resolution; pouring the vast majority of their resources into that endeavor.

The number of complaints the Palestinian writes per month is just pathetic and childlike in mentality. And the sheer numbers would level a small forest just to print.

If the Palestinian want to be a prosperous nation, then they have to change their way of life; focusing on that which promotes peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either.

But the people in non self governing territories do have specific inalienable rights.

You are incorrect.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is an assessment. To some degree, it has validity.

There was an and time envisioned determined by the success of the mandatory. Of course the mandate was a monumental flop and it failed in any of its goals.

It was a temporary administrative not an ownership position. The mandate did not own beans.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree. If by ownership you mean sovereign control then --- I have to agree. But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either. Territorial control went to the Allied Powers and League of Nations, and not the indigenous population of the undefined sub-regions in from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia.

It is rather naive, in my opinion, to suggest that all the ills that befell the region we call Palestine, were the fault of the Mandatory (UK). The Arab Palestinian made little or no effort in the development of the territory. The general population was focused almost entirely on conflict as a means of resolution; pouring the vast majority of their resources into that endeavor.

The number of complaints the Palestinian writes per month is just pathetic and childlike in mentality. And the sheer numbers would level a small forest just to print.

If the Palestinian want to be a prosperous nation, then they have to change their way of life; focusing on that which promotes peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either.

But the people in non self governing territories do have specific inalienable rights.

You are incorrect.

No, you are incorrect, as always.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is an assessment. To some degree, it has validity.

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.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

There was an and time envisioned determined by the success of the mandatory. Of course the mandate was a monumental flop and it failed in any of its goals.

It was a temporary administrative not an ownership position. The mandate did not own beans.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree. If by ownership you mean sovereign control then --- I have to agree. But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either. Territorial control went to the Allied Powers and League of Nations, and not the indigenous population of the undefined sub-regions in from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia.

It is rather naive, in my opinion, to suggest that all the ills that befell the region we call Palestine, were the fault of the Mandatory (UK). The Arab Palestinian made little or no effort in the development of the territory. The general population was focused almost entirely on conflict as a means of resolution; pouring the vast majority of their resources into that endeavor.

The number of complaints the Palestinian writes per month is just pathetic and childlike in mentality. And the sheer numbers would level a small forest just to print.

If the Palestinian want to be a prosperous nation, then they have to change their way of life; focusing on that which promotes peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

"The Arab Palestinian made little or no effort in the development of the territory. The general population was focused almost entirely on conflict as a means of resolution; pouring the vast majority of their resources into that endeavor. "

The Christians and Muslims were resisting a European colonization project, like any people in the process of being colonized would do. What would you have had them do, welcome settlers bent on taking their land and displacing them? Do you ever think about the bullshit and propaganda you post.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is an assessment. To some degree, it has validity.

There was an and time envisioned determined by the success of the mandatory. Of course the mandate was a monumental flop and it failed in any of its goals.

It was a temporary administrative not an ownership position. The mandate did not own beans.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree. If by ownership you mean sovereign control then --- I have to agree. But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either. Territorial control went to the Allied Powers and League of Nations, and not the indigenous population of the undefined sub-regions in from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia.

It is rather naive, in my opinion, to suggest that all the ills that befell the region we call Palestine, were the fault of the Mandatory (UK). The Arab Palestinian made little or no effort in the development of the territory. The general population was focused almost entirely on conflict as a means of resolution; pouring the vast majority of their resources into that endeavor.

The number of complaints the Palestinian writes per month is just pathetic and childlike in mentality. And the sheer numbers would level a small forest just to print.

If the Palestinian want to be a prosperous nation, then they have to change their way of life; focusing on that which promotes peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

"The Arab Palestinian made little or no effort in the development of the territory. The general population was focused almost entirely on conflict as a means of resolution; pouring the vast majority of their resources into that endeavor. "

The Christians and Muslims were resisting a European colonization project, like any people in the process of being colonized would do. What would you have had them do, welcome settlers bent on taking their land and displacing them? Do you ever think about the bullshit and propaganda you post.

Rocco posting propaganda?? Now I know you're full of shit.
Rocco is the last poster here who would resort to propaganda, unlike the PaliNazis who thrive on propaganda.

Everything Rocco just said is 100% correct. If you can't handle the truth, then you shouldn't be posting here.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You're mixing up the rights.

But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either.

But the people in non self governing territories do have specific inalienable rights.

You are incorrect.

(COMMENT)

You were previously talking about the Mandatory not having sovereign territorial rights, and I indicated that neither did the Arab Palestinian.

Everyone on the planet has inalienable rights, including the Jewish People. It is not unique to the Arab Palestinian; they are not special. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, is just as much a part of the rights the Jewish People have as the Arab. Bearing in mind that nothing in this United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law.

But in having the rights, the Arab League cannot amass an Army of an external nature, and attempt to take by force that which could not be achieved through diplomacy, or peaceful means. The Palestinians have never been conferred some special authorization to use force.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You're mixing up the rights.

But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either.

But the people in non self governing territories do have specific inalienable rights.

You are incorrect.

(COMMENT)

You were previously talking about the Mandatory not having sovereign territorial rights, and I indicated that neither did the Arab Palestinian.

Everyone on the planet has inalienable rights, including the Jewish People. It is not unique to the Arab Palestinian; they are not special. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, is just as much a part of the rights the Jewish People have as the Arab. Bearing in mind that nothing in this United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law.

But in having the rights, the Arab League cannot amass an Army of an external nature, and attempt to take by force that which could not be achieved through diplomacy, or peaceful means. The Palestinians have never been conferred some special authorization to use force.

Most Respectfully,
R

OH YEAH!?
Bu-bu-bu-bull...

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is an assessment. To some degree, it has validity.

There was an and time envisioned determined by the success of the mandatory. Of course the mandate was a monumental flop and it failed in any of its goals.

It was a temporary administrative not an ownership position. The mandate did not own beans.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree. If by ownership you mean sovereign control then --- I have to agree. But then, the Arab did not have sovereign rights to the territory either. Territorial control went to the Allied Powers and League of Nations, and not the indigenous population of the undefined sub-regions in from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia.

It is rather naive, in my opinion, to suggest that all the ills that befell the region we call Palestine, were the fault of the Mandatory (UK). The Arab Palestinian made little or no effort in the development of the territory. The general population was focused almost entirely on conflict as a means of resolution; pouring the vast majority of their resources into that endeavor.

The number of complaints the Palestinian writes per month is just pathetic and childlike in mentality. And the sheer numbers would level a small forest just to print.

If the Palestinian want to be a prosperous nation, then they have to change their way of life; focusing on that which promotes peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

"The Arab Palestinian made little or no effort in the development of the territory. The general population was focused almost entirely on conflict as a means of resolution; pouring the vast majority of their resources into that endeavor. "

The Christians and Muslims were resisting a European colonization project, like any people in the process of being colonized would do. What would you have had them do, welcome settlers bent on taking their land and displacing them? Do you ever think about the bullshit and propaganda you post.

What did you expect Israel to do, allow the Palestinians to launch terror campaigns against them without fighting back?
And your colonization claim is a massive lie. The Palestinians had several opportunities so have an independent state, but kept rejecting them because they thought they could defeat Israel and have all of the land.
Now that they realize that they cannot defeat Israel, they are trying for a two state solution.
Too little too late.