Methodist Church Considers HP Company Divestment

[Roudy]

Roudy, et al,
Suriye Vilayeti - Tarih ve Medeniyet
That is correct. The designator "Palestine" was a regional name.

Yes of course you're making unsubstantiated allegations again. No one, and certainly not the Ottomans, who were Muslims who ruled the land for last hundreds of years, recognized a Palestine or Palestinian people.

Case closed.

(COMMENT)

And actually, still today, the term "Palestine" is a regional designation; either it means the "Palestinian Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip; OR the "1988 State of Palestine."

Sunday, January 19, 2014
Chris Gratien, Georgetown University

Note that the region of Palestine or Filistin also appears on this map (straddling Nablus and Jerusalem provinces at left), but only as a geographical space and not an administrative unit. (Source: tarihvemedeniyet.org)
​

Most Respectfully,
R

He himself knows that Muslim conquerors who ruled the land for over 1400 years did not recognize a Palestine or Palestinian people. But he isn't in the business of telling the truth.

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

OK, I just can't help myself here.

They might really have a reason for the name....

What else would they have been called? You are such a dummy.

(COMEDY RELEIF)

OH, you are such the "philistine."

(Smug, ignorant and normally boureoise classified as being ingnorant or opposed to cultural values
one who lacks knowledge in a specific area.)

Most Respectfully,
R

At least you have a sense of humor. Etruscan was a disparaging term the Romans used for the Tirreni (who ruled Rome for more than a century) although the Romans learned almost everything technological from them. Etruscan was associated with ignorant and uncultured for the Romans.

The plumbing, the architecture, armament and concrete came from the Etruscans, not the Romans. A recent discovery in Mugello, near Florence, demonstrates that the Etruscans had a modern civilization and a written language in Italy in 2,500 BC. Before the Iron Age! You are of Italian descent, you should be proud of your ancestry, which predates Jews.


The 2,500-year-old inscription found on a stone slab may describe an Etruscan fertility goddess.


Etruscan Inscription Offers Rare Clue to Mysterious People

What?! Why are you talking about a 2500 year old inscription. Can't prove the existence of a Palestine or Palestinian people in the last 1400 years, can ya? How pathetic is that.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Fenton Lum, et al,

Now this is interesting.

Moot. They're both there now and they're gong to have to figure it out like adults. We should leave them to it and cut off welfare to Israel.

(FORCED QUESTION)

What is the real suggestion here?

• You want a final - sudden death - no holds barred - military confrontation between the two adversaries???
• No rule of War, since the Palestinians do not honor them?
• No limitation - since the Arab Palestinians have been targeting civilians for over 40 years.

Is this what you really want?

• One Final military confrontation between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians!
• A confrontation to the death --- one culture (the only Jewish Nation in the world) --- against all the subcultures in the 22 nations (the offensive Arab League --- especially the first six member states – Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia) linch mob!
​

(CONDITION and SITUATION)

Possibility that it is "Incitement to Conflict" could lead to certain unpredictable outcomes:

By using UN and ICC (as well as poisining the atmosphere of the international community against Israel) as instruments of Political Warfare and Diplomatic Pressure, projects the idea that the decisions made by the UN or the ICC today --- are only temporary; they are not defensible over time. That a consortium can challenge the stare decisis effect on adopted recommendations --- instructional steps and the precedent set on the best interest of cultures in distress.

There must be an evaluation on the potential reaction by Israel in making the future of the ONLY nation of its kind in the world, designed specially to preserve and protect a culture that has been persecuted for centuries; will face imminent destruction by Islamic element from every direction.

Even after a massive (five nation) Arab League assault immediately after the establishment of a Jewish National Home in 1948 (in the shadow of the Holocaust of NAZI Germany). Supporting such former NAZIs leaders as former Wehrmacht Colonel Fawzi al-Qawuqji, Waffen SS Special Commando Hasan Salama, Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini who escaped arrest by the British, who submitted a draft German-Arab Declaration of Cooperation; including many letters to Germany on the topic to prevent Jewish emigration to Palestine AND collaboration with Nazis and his participative support for their genocidal actions.

Given that the International Community would set such conditions as to invariably bring the Jewish State down,that the lost of independence and sovereignty were emanate, and that the Israelis come to believe an attempt to military starve Israel such that an overwhelming Arab League Force might exploit and attack Israel, that Israel would not preemptively and systematically attack each participating nation. That in the event that the condition were to develop that would invariably lead to the total destruction of the Jewish State that Israel would have no alternative to launch such attacks on very key and irreplaceable targets in the Islamic World before the ability to do so was degraded.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Exactly! They want Palestinians do whatever tickles their fancy, and Israelis to be held back and show restraint. Hilarious. No nation that wishes to survive will accept that.

Meaning no nation wants to butt out and not exert thier own control.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Fenton Lum, et al,

Now this is interesting.

Moot. They're both there now and they're gong to have to figure it out like adults. We should leave them to it and cut off welfare to Israel.

(FORCED QUESTION)

What is the real suggestion here?

• You want a final - sudden death - no holds barred - military confrontation between the two adversaries???
• No rule of War, since the Palestinians do not honor them?
• No limitation - since the Arab Palestinians have been targeting civilians for over 40 years.

Is this what you really want?

• One Final military confrontation between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians!
• A confrontation to the death --- one culture (the only Jewish Nation in the world) --- against all the subcultures in the 22 nations (the offensive Arab League --- especially the first six member states – Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia) linch mob!
​

(CONDITION and SITUATION)

Possibility that it is "Incitement to Conflict" could lead to certain unpredictable outcomes:

By using UN and ICC (as well as poisining the atmosphere of the international community against Israel) as instruments of Political Warfare and Diplomatic Pressure, projects the idea that the decisions made by the UN or the ICC today --- are only temporary; they are not defensible over time. That a consortium can challenge the stare decisis effect on adopted recommendations --- instructional steps and the precedent set on the best interest of cultures in distress.

There must be an evaluation on the potential reaction by Israel in making the future of the ONLY nation of its kind in the world, designed specially to preserve and protect a culture that has been persecuted for centuries; will face imminent destruction by Islamic element from every direction.

Even after a massive (five nation) Arab League assault immediately after the establishment of a Jewish National Home in 1948 (in the shadow of the Holocaust of NAZI Germany). Supporting such former NAZIs leaders as former Wehrmacht Colonel Fawzi al-Qawuqji, Waffen SS Special Commando Hasan Salama, Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini who escaped arrest by the British, who submitted a draft German-Arab Declaration of Cooperation; including many letters to Germany on the topic to prevent Jewish emigration to Palestine AND collaboration with Nazis and his participative support for their genocidal actions.

Given that the International Community would set such conditions as to invariably bring the Jewish State down,that the lost of independence and sovereignty were emanate, and that the Israelis come to believe an attempt to military starve Israel such that an overwhelming Arab League Force might exploit and attack Israel, that Israel would not preemptively and systematically attack each participating nation. That in the event that the condition were to develop that would invariably lead to the total destruction of the Jewish State that Israel would have no alternative to launch such attacks on very key and irreplaceable targets in the Islamic World before the ability to do so was degraded.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

​

I'm saying given the history, the intransigence on both side of the issue, the poisonous virulent atmosphere involved within all parties jockeying for their own pieces of the pie in the middle east, this is ultimately for the Israelis and Palestinians to work out on their own. It’s the only way anything will ever be settled, if it ever can be at this point. Way too many cooks in the kitchen trying to serve up their own version of "the" dish. Way too many parties involved and every last one of them has been guilty of their own transgressions. Including the US.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Roudy, et al,
Suriye Vilayeti - Tarih ve Medeniyet
That is correct. The designator "Palestine" was a regional name.

Yes of course you're making unsubstantiated allegations again. No one, and certainly not the Ottomans, who were Muslims who ruled the land for last hundreds of years, recognized a Palestine or Palestinian people.

Case closed.

(COMMENT)

And actually, still today, the term "Palestine" is a regional designation; either it means the "Palestinian Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip; OR the "1988 State of Palestine."

Sunday, January 19, 2014
Chris Gratien, Georgetown University

Note that the region of Palestine or Filistin also appears on this map (straddling Nablus and Jerusalem provinces at left), but only as a geographical space and not an administrative unit. (Source: tarihvemedeniyet.org)
​

Most Respectfully,
R

If this sort or reasoning had any chance of resovling anything, it would have done so long ago. All I ever hear from anyone on this issue is feckless attempts at rationalizing the brutality of one side or the other. And so, this remains, and will.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

OK, I just can't help myself here.

They might really have a reason for the name....

What else would they have been called? You are such a dummy.

(COMEDY RELEIF)

OH, you are such the "philistine."

(Smug, ignorant and normally boureoise classified as being ingnorant or opposed to cultural values
one who lacks knowledge in a specific area.)

Most Respectfully,
R

At least you have a sense of humor. Etruscan was a disparaging term the Romans used for the Tirreni (who ruled Rome for more than a century) although the Romans learned almost everything technological from them. Etruscan was associated with ignorant and uncultured for the Romans.

The plumbing, the architecture, armament and concrete came from the Etruscans, not the Romans. A recent discovery in Mugello, near Florence, demonstrates that the Etruscans had a modern civilization and a written language in Italy in 2,500 BC. Before the Iron Age! You are of Italian descent, you should be proud of your ancestry, which predates Jews.


The 2,500-year-old inscription found on a stone slab may describe an Etruscan fertility goddess.


Etruscan Inscription Offers Rare Clue to Mysterious People

What?! Why are you talking about a 2500 year old inscription. Can't prove the existence of a Palestine or Palestinian people in the last 1400 years, can ya? How pathetic is that.

What's pathetic is that you don't quite get the fact that the Palestinians could be called anything you like. They were the native Christian and Muslims inhabitants of the area referred to as Palestine at the time the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed.

Even if Palaestina Prima never existed and there were no inhabitants of Palaestina Prima who were called Palaestinesi in Latin, it would not matter. LOL

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

This closer to the truth and reality.

Even if Palaestina Prima never existed and there were no inhabitants of Palaestina Prima who were called Palaestinesi in Latin, it would not matter. LOL

(COMMENT)

The continuous argument that it makes some difference some entities called Palestinians back more than 2000 years ago makes some impact on the 20th customary law. Major General Smedley Butler encapsulated the Customary Law best by saying in 1933:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

We give the Arab Palestinians way too much attention to their ridiculous claims about the Article 22 promise to them, when they were not a party to the covenant, and the covenant did not engage or speak to them. We give them too much attention when we try to logically explain that their interpretations of the Covenant, the Mandate, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the UNSCOP Recommendation have anything to do with their claims do not change the substantive facts. The Arab Palestinians who attempt to use force, threats, or economic influence to coerce and achieve through violence the objectives that they never even attempted to achieve peacefully.

The Customary Law, was as MG Butler stated: "Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it." The Arab Palestinians, and their hostile allies, the Arab League, made attempts multiple times through either acts of aggression (as in 1948 and 1973) or the demonstrated military coercion by massing huge troops strengths in (the 1967) confrontation with Israeli Forces through the forced removal of UNEF from Sinai and to block the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, was an incitement to hostilities.

Each time any of us attempts to explain why the Arab Palestinians have no substantiated claim to the territory known as Israel, we give some credibility that the claim even has some merit. Merit that simply the Hostile Arab Palestinians simply do not merit. They did not attempt to reach-out for peace in 1949, not in 1967, and not after the sneak attack in 1973. And even today, they, as a people, Even after all the bitter bickering, the UN, only recognizes that the Palestinian people have self-determination and independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. AND the UN redefined the meaning of "Palestine" as in UN General Assembly A/RES/43/177, wherein "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization."

And it is even more irrational that elements and fragments of the Hostile Arab Palestinian campaign have some misguided belief that the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, and designation of "Palestine" today, suggests that HAMAS does not violate international law each and every time it's hostile operations strays outside the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

This closer to the truth and reality.

Even if Palaestina Prima never existed and there were no inhabitants of Palaestina Prima who were called Palaestinesi in Latin, it would not matter. LOL

(COMMENT)

The continuous argument that it makes some difference some entities called Palestinians back more than 2000 years ago makes some impact on the 20th customary law. Major General Smedley Butler encapsulated the Customary Law best by saying in 1933:

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
​

We give the Arab Palestinians way too much attention to their ridiculous claims about the Article 22 promise to them, when they were not a party to the covenant, and the covenant did not engage or speak to them. We give them too much attention when we try to logically explain that their interpretations of the Covenant, the Mandate, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the UNSCOP Recommendation have anything to do with their claims do not change the substantive facts. The Arab Palestinians who attempt to use force, threats, or economic influence to coerce and achieve through violence the objectives that they never even attempted to achieve peacefully.

The Customary Law, was as MG Butler stated: "Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it." The Arab Palestinians, and their hostile allies, the Arab League, made attempts multiple times through either acts of aggression (as in 1948 and 1973) or the demonstrated military coercion by massing huge troops strengths in (the 1967) confrontation with Israeli Forces through the forced removal of UNEF from Sinai and to block the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, was an incitement to hostilities.

Each time any of us attempts to explain why the Arab Palestinians have no substantiated claim to the territory known as Israel, we give some credibility that the claim even has some merit. Merit that simply the Hostile Arab Palestinians simply do not merit. They did not attempt to reach-out for peace in 1949, not in 1967, and not after the sneak attack in 1973. And even today, they, as a people, Even after all the bitter bickering, the UN, only recognizes that the Palestinian people have self-determination and independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. AND the UN redefined the meaning of "Palestine" as in UN General Assembly A/RES/43/177, wherein "the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization."

And it is even more irrational that elements and fragments of the Hostile Arab Palestinian campaign have some misguided belief that the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, and designation of "Palestine" today, suggests that HAMAS does not violate international law each and every time it's hostile operations strays outside the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated clearly that the people "inhabiting" the former territories of the Central Powers were the subjects of the Article:

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

Stating otherwise is just silly.

2. The invasion of hostile Jews from Europe who came with the intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants, sponsored by Britain, which ignored its duty to apply the principle "well-being and development of such peoples" (the inhabitants) is the cause of the conflict.

3. International law was violated when hostile European Jews made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine to conquer territory.

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

OK, I just can't help myself here.

They might really have a reason for the name....

What else would they have been called? You are such a dummy.

(COMEDY RELEIF)

OH, you are such the "philistine."

(Smug, ignorant and normally boureoise classified as being ingnorant or opposed to cultural values
one who lacks knowledge in a specific area.)

Most Respectfully,
R

At least you have a sense of humor. Etruscan was a disparaging term the Romans used for the Tirreni (who ruled Rome for more than a century) although the Romans learned almost everything technological from them. Etruscan was associated with ignorant and uncultured for the Romans.

The plumbing, the architecture, armament and concrete came from the Etruscans, not the Romans. A recent discovery in Mugello, near Florence, demonstrates that the Etruscans had a modern civilization and a written language in Italy in 2,500 BC. Before the Iron Age! You are of Italian descent, you should be proud of your ancestry, which predates Jews.


The 2,500-year-old inscription found on a stone slab may describe an Etruscan fertility goddess.


Etruscan Inscription Offers Rare Clue to Mysterious People

What?! Why are you talking about a 2500 year old inscription. Can't prove the existence of a Palestine or Palestinian people in the last 1400 years, can ya? How pathetic is that.

What's pathetic is that you don't quite get the fact that the Palestinians could be called anything you like. They were the native Christian and Muslims inhabitants of the area referred to as Palestine at the time the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed.

Even if Palaestina Prima never existed and there were no inhabitants of Palaestina Prima who were called Palaestinesi in Latin, it would not matter. LOL

Ha ha ha! "The Palestinians could be anything you like"!

But they weren't, "Palestinians", for the 1400 years of Muslim and Ottoman rule of the land.

Which is why these quotes make sense:

There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".

- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not".

- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 -

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".

- Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956 -

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -

"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".

- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat -

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, being able to cut'n'paste a section of text, does not mean that the text makes a certain promise ti any third party not subject to the Covenant and not a party to the Covenant,

1. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated clearly that the people "inhabiting" the former territories of the Central Powers were the subjects of the Article:

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

Stating otherwise is just silly.
​

(COMMENT)

If the Article 22 (mid-1919) was to be interpreted as requiring effect to be given to the "principle of self-determination leading to independence" --- then why did it not just say that. But it did not. Because the authors had something else in mind.

What amazes me is that the Arab Palestinian insists on implying that Article 22 makes some sort of promise to them, when it was not written to them. In fact, that was not the intent of either the Arab (not a party to the Covenant) or the Allied Powers (members of the Covenant). The Sharif of Mecca had a vision. Sharif Hussein, King of the Hejaz, undertook Great Arab Revolt to meet the objective to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Northern Syria) to Aden (Yemen and the Arabian Sea).

In mid-1916 (a century ago), coming three years before the Sykes-Picot Agreement (S-PA) (Asia Minor Agreement), a confidential agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, laid down the borders of the Middle East. The S-PA divided into new countries within two spheres of influence:

• The British Sphere: Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine under British control; and
• The French Sphere: Syria and Lebanon under French control.
​

At the time of the Balfour Declaration.while there were 10 times as many Christian and Muslim, as compared with 59,000 Jews --- the Arab Palestinian argument was based on the unlikely probability that small minority (Jews) could be given preferential treatment (over Christian and Muslim). It becomes much more understandable when viewed from the perspective that the Allied Powers --- which placed the landscape under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) --- and NOT under self-governing and autonomous administration. The British government, the following year and two years before the League of Nations Covenant, made clear its intention to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home. While the OETA and Civil Administration that followed, made reference to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish Christian and Muslim communities in Palestine, the focus was on the rights and political status to be enjoyed by Jewish immigration.

What would be "silly" (as you say) would have been if the Allied Powers established a clear intent and special concern for the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and then turn around and write Article 22 with an entirely different intent.

The confusing comes from the fact that the inhabitance, formerly under enemy occupation, began grasping at straws in order to project some undefined rights (CIVIL and RELIGIOUS of the first decade of the 1900s) and argue that these rights encompass sovereignty and independence. Totally (with the emphasis on "totally") alien concepts in the Arab Muslim world. [ --- (QUESTION) --- What Arab/Muslim countries, either before or since the Mandate period, fought for the cause other than the religious totalitarianism of the Islam (believe or suffer the consequences) and Muslim states ruled by Emirs, Princes, and Kings?]

2. The invasion of hostile Jews from Europe who came with the intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants, sponsored by Britain, which ignored its duty to apply the principle "well-being and development of such peoples" (the inhabitants) is the cause of the conflict.

(COMMENT)

You make the case for three principle ideas here.

• Invasion of hostile Jews from Europe.
• Intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants.
• Duty to apply the principle well-being and development of such peoples.
​

• The Allied Powers encouraged immigration. There was no invasion.
• The intent was to establish a Jewish National Home, and not "dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants."
• The principles well-being and development, this was actually achieved for any Christian or Muslim residence that remained with the sovereignty and independence of Israel.
​

On the matter of "well-being" and "human development."

The State of Israel is in the top 25 nations of the world, judged by the UN for their human development. No Arab League or Regional Government comes close to the level and ranking of Israel. The Human Development Index (HDI) is the yard stick by which any whiny Arab Palestinian can use to question Arab League (especially the Arab Palestinian) policy choices, asking how two countries compare their human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities and leadership abilities intended to achieve "well-being and development of such peoples." There is simply NO WAY that the Arab Palestinians can justify the continuous assault on Israel when it continually outstrips every single Arab League Nation (oil rich or not) in terms of "well-being and development." If there were even some Arab League nations that could compare, that would be arguable. BUT when ever single Arab League Nation falls behind Israel --- the Palestinians cannot argue that they were retarded by the Israeli Occupation. That simply cannot be true.

3. International law was violated when hostile European Jews made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine to conquer territory.

(COMMENT)

There is no point in the last 1000 years that any Jewish Nation has attacked any non-Jewish nation. Israel have been at war with elements of the Arab League since 1948. After establishing treaties Egypt and Jordan, Israel and Egypt/Jordan have ceased hostilities for decades. The same cannot be said for the countries of Lebanon and Syria. Even the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), who have consistently refused and rejected peace overtures, have deteriorated over time because they are opposed to peace.

BUT at no time in the last millennium can the HoAP claim any Jews (from anywhere) made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine. The Arab League opened hostilities in 1948, and have consistently refused to make peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

So you cant find any links so you try and project your failure. The topic is Isreal/Palestine so keep to the topic and don't try and deflect by bringing in other nations. The other islamonazi propagandists all try that and fail because they are too stupid to keep on topic.


So how about those links to Israeli cleansing of Palestinians and apartheid in Israel ?

I thought you were going to post links proving Israel is not occupying and settling on Paletinian land.

It isn't Palestinian land. It was ottoman land for the last 700 years, then British from about the 1920's to late 1940's, then five Arab nations attacked Israel and even though they were defeated, the Jordanians and Egyptians occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years up to 1967, where the Arabs once again attacked Israel and this time they lost those as well. During the last twenty years of Arabs "occupying" the same lands, there was no whining about an occupation, nor was there a peep from anybody about a "Palestine".

So who should Israel be giving the land back to? The Jordanians and Egyptians? The British? The Turks? And why can't Jews live in their ancestral and religious homeland? Because a bunch of savage Muslims said so?

So who should Israel be giving the land back to?

See, that's what I'm talking about. Where did I say that? I'm sure you have "proof". The term/concept "savage" is always used in a cleansing operation.

Simple enough question, why are you struggling to provide an answer.

I have given you the timeline of ownership and have shown that the arab muslims never had any ownership or sovereignty of the land. What "proof" would you accept that the land is Jewish ?

Moot. They're both there now and they're gong to have to figure it out like adults. We should leave them to it and cut off welfare to Israel.

And again you show your racism by not saying cutting welfare to all sides in the conflict. Seeing as the Palestinians get more in actual aid than Israel it would hit them harder.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

I think you are wrong on two counts.

The issue had nothing to do with who ruled. The issue was Ruddy's assertion that the Ottomans ruled for 700 years. They did not rule anywhere near 700 years.

Who ruled has nothing to do with the rights of the native inhabitants pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

(COMMENT)

The issue of which country exhibited sovereignty over the territory, is not the issue of my mistake in 700 years. It was that in the last 700 years, the native inhabitants did not have self-government, autonomy, or sovereignty and independence (maybe even 2000 years).

The League of nations covenant did not identify the inhabitants west of the Jordan River as having any special quality. That territory West of the Jordan River was not mention in Article 22 as having provisional recognition. It was the Allied Powers that gave provisional recognition to that portion of the territory East of the Jordan River and covered in Article 25 of the Mandate as not subject to the Article specific to issue of Israeli immigration and the establishment of the Jewish National Home. It was not the case then (1920 and 1922) or since that time that the Arab Palestinians have demonstrated their ability to stand alone.

Article 22 did stipulate that tutelage was an issue. And at every turn, the Arab Palestinian, West of the Jordan River, rejected such. As opposed to the Arab that were East of the Jordan River; of the Jewish immigrants.

Most Respectfully,
R

It wasn't your mistake. It was Ruddy's mistake.

Article 22 did not identify any inhabitants specifically. It states "the inhabitants" be they in african Middle Eastern or any other territories of the Axis powers.

The Palestinian Arabs and Christians presented draft constitutions, begged and requested independence for the full term of the Mandate. The British admitted that the only reason independence was not granted to the native inhabitants was because the European colonial population had not increased to a point that would result in their ability to rule over the native population. The Peel Commission reports exactly that.

Then produce them from the UN archives

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

I think you are wrong on two counts.

The issue had nothing to do with who ruled. The issue was Ruddy's assertion that the Ottomans ruled for 700 years. They did not rule anywhere near 700 years.

Who ruled has nothing to do with the rights of the native inhabitants pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

(COMMENT)

The issue of which country exhibited sovereignty over the territory, is not the issue of my mistake in 700 years. It was that in the last 700 years, the native inhabitants did not have self-government, autonomy, or sovereignty and independence (maybe even 2000 years).

The League of nations covenant did not identify the inhabitants west of the Jordan River as having any special quality. That territory West of the Jordan River was not mention in Article 22 as having provisional recognition. It was the Allied Powers that gave provisional recognition to that portion of the territory East of the Jordan River and covered in Article 25 of the Mandate as not subject to the Article specific to issue of Israeli immigration and the establishment of the Jewish National Home. It was not the case then (1920 and 1922) or since that time that the Arab Palestinians have demonstrated their ability to stand alone.

Article 22 did stipulate that tutelage was an issue. And at every turn, the Arab Palestinian, West of the Jordan River, rejected such. As opposed to the Arab that were East of the Jordan River; of the Jewish immigrants.

Most Respectfully,
R

It wasn't your mistake. It was Ruddy's mistake.

Article 22 did not identify any inhabitants specifically. It states "the inhabitants" be they in african Middle Eastern or any other territories of the Axis powers.

The Palestinian Arabs and Christians presented draft constitutions, begged and requested independence for the full term of the Mandate. The British admitted that the only reason independence was not granted to the native inhabitants was because the European colonial population had not increased to a point that would result in their ability to rule over the native population. The Peel Commission reports exactly that.

Yada yada yada, for the last 1400 years of Arab / Ottoman rule there has not been a Palestine or a Palestinian people.

There certainly were Palestinians, that's what people of Palestina Prima were called.

So there was no Palestinian state. What does that have to do with anything? That the inhabitants of Palestine were ruled by foreigners does not change their right to independence as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. They certainly had a right to self determination as the native inhabitants before a bunch of European colonists.

Who were the people living there at the time the Romans named the place, as no Christians were invented at that time and certainly no muslims.

The name was meant as an insult and that is why the Christians and muslims were affronted when called Palestinians. The only palestinians ever were the indigenous Jews that had inhabited the land from 2500 B.C.E. to the present day

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

I think you are wrong on two counts.

(COMMENT)

The issue of which country exhibited sovereignty over the territory, is not the issue of my mistake in 700 years. It was that in the last 700 years, the native inhabitants did not have self-government, autonomy, or sovereignty and independence (maybe even 2000 years).

The League of nations covenant did not identify the inhabitants west of the Jordan River as having any special quality. That territory West of the Jordan River was not mention in Article 22 as having provisional recognition. It was the Allied Powers that gave provisional recognition to that portion of the territory East of the Jordan River and covered in Article 25 of the Mandate as not subject to the Article specific to issue of Israeli immigration and the establishment of the Jewish National Home. It was not the case then (1920 and 1922) or since that time that the Arab Palestinians have demonstrated their ability to stand alone.

Article 22 did stipulate that tutelage was an issue. And at every turn, the Arab Palestinian, West of the Jordan River, rejected such. As opposed to the Arab that were East of the Jordan River; of the Jewish immigrants.

Most Respectfully,
R

It wasn't your mistake. It was Ruddy's mistake.

Article 22 did not identify any inhabitants specifically. It states "the inhabitants" be they in african Middle Eastern or any other territories of the Axis powers.

The Palestinian Arabs and Christians presented draft constitutions, begged and requested independence for the full term of the Mandate. The British admitted that the only reason independence was not granted to the native inhabitants was because the European colonial population had not increased to a point that would result in their ability to rule over the native population. The Peel Commission reports exactly that.

Yada yada yada, for the last 1400 years of Arab / Ottoman rule there has not been a Palestine or a Palestinian people.

There certainly were Palestinians, that's what people of Palestina Prima were called.

So there was no Palestinian state. What does that have to do with anything? That the inhabitants of Palestine were ruled by foreigners does not change their right to independence as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. They certainly had a right to self determination as the native inhabitants before a bunch of European colonists.

Yes of course you're making unsubstantiated allegations again. No one, and certainly not the Ottomans, who were Muslims who ruled the land for last hundreds of years, recognized a Palestine or Palestinian people.

Case closed.

Of course people from Palestina Prima or Filistin were known as Palestinians. What else would they have been called? You are such a dummy.

HOW ABOUT WHAT THEY CALLED THEMSELVES ?

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, being able to cut'n'paste a section of text, does not mean that the text makes a certain promise ti any third party not subject to the Covenant and not a party to the Covenant,

1. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated clearly that the people "inhabiting" the former territories of the Central Powers were the subjects of the Article:

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

Stating otherwise is just silly.
​

(COMMENT)

If the Article 22 (mid-1919) was to be interpreted as requiring effect to be given to the "principle of self-determination leading to independence" --- then why did it not just say that. But it did not. Because the authors had something else in mind.

What amazes me is that the Arab Palestinian insists on implying that Article 22 makes some sort of promise to them, when it was not written to them. In fact, that was not the intent of either the Arab (not a party to the Covenant) or the Allied Powers (members of the Covenant). The Sharif of Mecca had a vision. Sharif Hussein, King of the Hejaz, undertook Great Arab Revolt to meet the objective to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Northern Syria) to Aden (Yemen and the Arabian Sea).

In mid-1916 (a century ago), coming three years before the Sykes-Picot Agreement (S-PA) (Asia Minor Agreement), a confidential agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, laid down the borders of the Middle East. The S-PA divided into new countries within two spheres of influence:

• The British Sphere: Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine under British control; and
• The French Sphere: Syria and Lebanon under French control.
​

At the time of the Balfour Declaration.while there were 10 times as many Christian and Muslim, as compared with 59,000 Jews --- the Arab Palestinian argument was based on the unlikely probability that small minority (Jews) could be given preferential treatment (over Christian and Muslim). It becomes much more understandable when viewed from the perspective that the Allied Powers --- which placed the landscape under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) --- and NOT under self-governing and autonomous administration. The British government, the following year and two years before the League of Nations Covenant, made clear its intention to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home. While the OETA and Civil Administration that followed, made reference to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish Christian and Muslim communities in Palestine, the focus was on the rights and political status to be enjoyed by Jewish immigration.

What would be "silly" (as you say) would have been if the Allied Powers established a clear intent and special concern for the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and then turn around and write Article 22 with an entirely different intent.

The confusing comes from the fact that the inhabitance, formerly under enemy occupation, began grasping at straws in order to project some undefined rights (CIVIL and RELIGIOUS of the first decade of the 1900s) and argue that these rights encompass sovereignty and independence. Totally (with the emphasis on "totally") alien concepts in the Arab Muslim world. [ --- (QUESTION) --- What Arab/Muslim countries, either before or since the Mandate period, fought for the cause other than the religious totalitarianism of the Islam (believe or suffer the consequences) and Muslim states ruled by Emirs, Princes, and Kings?]

2. The invasion of hostile Jews from Europe who came with the intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants, sponsored by Britain, which ignored its duty to apply the principle "well-being and development of such peoples" (the inhabitants) is the cause of the conflict.

(COMMENT)

You make the case for three principle ideas here.

• Invasion of hostile Jews from Europe.
• Intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants.
• Duty to apply the principle well-being and development of such peoples.
​

• The Allied Powers encouraged immigration. There was no invasion.
• The intent was to establish a Jewish National Home, and not "dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants."
• The principles well-being and development, this was actually achieved for any Christian or Muslim residence that remained with the sovereignty and independence of Israel.
​

On the matter of "well-being" and "human development."

The State of Israel is in the top 25 nations of the world, judged by the UN for their human development. No Arab League or Regional Government comes close to the level and ranking of Israel. The Human Development Index (HDI) is the yard stick by which any whiny Arab Palestinian can use to question Arab League (especially the Arab Palestinian) policy choices, asking how two countries compare their human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities and leadership abilities intended to achieve "well-being and development of such peoples." There is simply NO WAY that the Arab Palestinians can justify the continuous assault on Israel when it continually outstrips every single Arab League Nation (oil rich or not) in terms of "well-being and development." If there were even some Arab League nations that could compare, that would be arguable. BUT when ever single Arab League Nation falls behind Israel --- the Palestinians cannot argue that they were retarded by the Israeli Occupation. That simply cannot be true.

3. International law was violated when hostile European Jews made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine to conquer territory.

(COMMENT)

There is no point in the last 1000 years that any Jewish Nation has attacked any non-Jewish nation. Israel have been at war with elements of the Arab League since 1948. After establishing treaties Egypt and Jordan, Israel and Egypt/Jordan have ceased hostilities for decades. The same cannot be said for the countries of Lebanon and Syria. Even the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), who have consistently refused and rejected peace overtures, have deteriorated over time because they are opposed to peace.

BUT at no time in the last millennium can the HoAP claim any Jews (from anywhere) made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine. The Arab League opened hostilities in 1948, and have consistently refused to make peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ouch, that's going to hurt.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, being able to cut'n'paste a section of text, does not mean that the text makes a certain promise ti any third party not subject to the Covenant and not a party to the Covenant,

1. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated clearly that the people "inhabiting" the former territories of the Central Powers were the subjects of the Article:

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

Stating otherwise is just silly.
​

(COMMENT)

If the Article 22 (mid-1919) was to be interpreted as requiring effect to be given to the "principle of self-determination leading to independence" --- then why did it not just say that. But it did not. Because the authors had something else in mind.

What amazes me is that the Arab Palestinian insists on implying that Article 22 makes some sort of promise to them, when it was not written to them. In fact, that was not the intent of either the Arab (not a party to the Covenant) or the Allied Powers (members of the Covenant). The Sharif of Mecca had a vision. Sharif Hussein, King of the Hejaz, undertook Great Arab Revolt to meet the objective to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Northern Syria) to Aden (Yemen and the Arabian Sea).

In mid-1916 (a century ago), coming three years before the Sykes-Picot Agreement (S-PA) (Asia Minor Agreement), a confidential agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, laid down the borders of the Middle East. The S-PA divided into new countries within two spheres of influence:

• The British Sphere: Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine under British control; and
• The French Sphere: Syria and Lebanon under French control.
​

At the time of the Balfour Declaration.while there were 10 times as many Christian and Muslim, as compared with 59,000 Jews --- the Arab Palestinian argument was based on the unlikely probability that small minority (Jews) could be given preferential treatment (over Christian and Muslim). It becomes much more understandable when viewed from the perspective that the Allied Powers --- which placed the landscape under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) --- and NOT under self-governing and autonomous administration. The British government, the following year and two years before the League of Nations Covenant, made clear its intention to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home. While the OETA and Civil Administration that followed, made reference to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish Christian and Muslim communities in Palestine, the focus was on the rights and political status to be enjoyed by Jewish immigration.

What would be "silly" (as you say) would have been if the Allied Powers established a clear intent and special concern for the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and then turn around and write Article 22 with an entirely different intent.

The confusing comes from the fact that the inhabitance, formerly under enemy occupation, began grasping at straws in order to project some undefined rights (CIVIL and RELIGIOUS of the first decade of the 1900s) and argue that these rights encompass sovereignty and independence. Totally (with the emphasis on "totally") alien concepts in the Arab Muslim world. [ --- (QUESTION) --- What Arab/Muslim countries, either before or since the Mandate period, fought for the cause other than the religious totalitarianism of the Islam (believe or suffer the consequences) and Muslim states ruled by Emirs, Princes, and Kings?]

2. The invasion of hostile Jews from Europe who came with the intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants, sponsored by Britain, which ignored its duty to apply the principle "well-being and development of such peoples" (the inhabitants) is the cause of the conflict.

(COMMENT)

You make the case for three principle ideas here.

• Invasion of hostile Jews from Europe.
• Intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants.
• Duty to apply the principle well-being and development of such peoples.
​

• The Allied Powers encouraged immigration. There was no invasion.
• The intent was to establish a Jewish National Home, and not "dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants."
• The principles well-being and development, this was actually achieved for any Christian or Muslim residence that remained with the sovereignty and independence of Israel.
​

On the matter of "well-being" and "human development."

The State of Israel is in the top 25 nations of the world, judged by the UN for their human development. No Arab League or Regional Government comes close to the level and ranking of Israel. The Human Development Index (HDI) is the yard stick by which any whiny Arab Palestinian can use to question Arab League (especially the Arab Palestinian) policy choices, asking how two countries compare their human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities and leadership abilities intended to achieve "well-being and development of such peoples." There is simply NO WAY that the Arab Palestinians can justify the continuous assault on Israel when it continually outstrips every single Arab League Nation (oil rich or not) in terms of "well-being and development." If there were even some Arab League nations that could compare, that would be arguable. BUT when ever single Arab League Nation falls behind Israel --- the Palestinians cannot argue that they were retarded by the Israeli Occupation. That simply cannot be true.

3. International law was violated when hostile European Jews made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine to conquer territory.

(COMMENT)

There is no point in the last 1000 years that any Jewish Nation has attacked any non-Jewish nation. Israel have been at war with elements of the Arab League since 1948. After establishing treaties Egypt and Jordan, Israel and Egypt/Jordan have ceased hostilities for decades. The same cannot be said for the countries of Lebanon and Syria. Even the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), who have consistently refused and rejected peace overtures, have deteriorated over time because they are opposed to peace.

BUT at no time in the last millennium can the HoAP claim any Jews (from anywhere) made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine. The Arab League opened hostilities in 1948, and have consistently refused to make peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ouch, that's going to hurt.

Hostilities were opened by the European Jews when they invaded Palestine with the intention to colonize and dispossess the native people. The Arab League intervened in an attempt to prevent the ongoing ethnic cleansing and killing of the native Muslims and Christians by the European colonists.

The European Jews, from the start intended to invade and colonize Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is complete nonsense.

Hostilities were opened by the European Jews when they invaded Palestine with the intention to colonize and dispossess the native people. The Arab League intervened in an attempt to prevent the ongoing ethnic cleansing and killing of the native Muslims and Christians by the European colonists.

The European Jews, from the start intended to invade and colonize Palestine.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you may interpret the Jewish intentions to be, no matter what the Jewish stated intentions were, the fact is, the ability to achieve any intention was only made possible by the will of the Allied Powers.

While there may be evidence of Jewish immigration --- there is absolutely no evidence of a Jewish invasion that was not duly authorized and encouraged by the Allied Powers.

The perjurious implication and testimony given by the Arab Parties, is merely further evidence that the Arabs had no authority legally or practically ability to prevent the immigration, acceptance of citizenship, or the establishment of the Jewish National Home in the conduct of self-determination and the formation of sovereignty and independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

This is complete nonsense.

Hostilities were opened by the European Jews when they invaded Palestine with the intention to colonize and dispossess the native people. The Arab League intervened in an attempt to prevent the ongoing ethnic cleansing and killing of the native Muslims and Christians by the European colonists.

The European Jews, from the start intended to invade and colonize Palestine.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you may interpret the Jewish intentions to be, no matter what the Jewish stated intentions were, the fact is, the ability to achieve any intention was only made possible by the will of the Allied Powers.

While there may be evidence of Jewish immigration --- there is absolutely no evidence of a Jewish invasion that was not duly authorized and encouraged by the Allied Powers.

The perjurious implication and testimony given by the Arab Parties, is merely further evidence that the Arabs had no authority legally or practically ability to prevent the immigration, acceptance of citizenship, or the establishment of the Jewish National Home in the conduct of self-determination and the formation of sovereignty and independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is an even bigger crime the Allied Powers encouraged the colonization and dispossession of the native inhabitants. Contrary to the pledge they signed when they signed the Covenant of the League of Nations. The native inhabitants had every right, legal and natural, to resist colonization and dispossession. Native inhabitants anywhere have the right to resist the crime of colonization and dispossession.

 

[montelatici]

And, from someone who knew something about colonialism:

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, being able to cut'n'paste a section of text, does not mean that the text makes a certain promise ti any third party not subject to the Covenant and not a party to the Covenant,

1. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated clearly that the people "inhabiting" the former territories of the Central Powers were the subjects of the Article:

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

Stating otherwise is just silly.
​

(COMMENT)

If the Article 22 (mid-1919) was to be interpreted as requiring effect to be given to the "principle of self-determination leading to independence" --- then why did it not just say that. But it did not. Because the authors had something else in mind.

What amazes me is that the Arab Palestinian insists on implying that Article 22 makes some sort of promise to them, when it was not written to them. In fact, that was not the intent of either the Arab (not a party to the Covenant) or the Allied Powers (members of the Covenant). The Sharif of Mecca had a vision. Sharif Hussein, King of the Hejaz, undertook Great Arab Revolt to meet the objective to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Northern Syria) to Aden (Yemen and the Arabian Sea).

In mid-1916 (a century ago), coming three years before the Sykes-Picot Agreement (S-PA) (Asia Minor Agreement), a confidential agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, laid down the borders of the Middle East. The S-PA divided into new countries within two spheres of influence:

• The British Sphere: Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine under British control; and
• The French Sphere: Syria and Lebanon under French control.
​

At the time of the Balfour Declaration.while there were 10 times as many Christian and Muslim, as compared with 59,000 Jews --- the Arab Palestinian argument was based on the unlikely probability that small minority (Jews) could be given preferential treatment (over Christian and Muslim). It becomes much more understandable when viewed from the perspective that the Allied Powers --- which placed the landscape under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) --- and NOT under self-governing and autonomous administration. The British government, the following year and two years before the League of Nations Covenant, made clear its intention to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home. While the OETA and Civil Administration that followed, made reference to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish Christian and Muslim communities in Palestine, the focus was on the rights and political status to be enjoyed by Jewish immigration.

What would be "silly" (as you say) would have been if the Allied Powers established a clear intent and special concern for the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and then turn around and write Article 22 with an entirely different intent.

The confusing comes from the fact that the inhabitance, formerly under enemy occupation, began grasping at straws in order to project some undefined rights (CIVIL and RELIGIOUS of the first decade of the 1900s) and argue that these rights encompass sovereignty and independence. Totally (with the emphasis on "totally") alien concepts in the Arab Muslim world. [ --- (QUESTION) --- What Arab/Muslim countries, either before or since the Mandate period, fought for the cause other than the religious totalitarianism of the Islam (believe or suffer the consequences) and Muslim states ruled by Emirs, Princes, and Kings?]

2. The invasion of hostile Jews from Europe who came with the intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants, sponsored by Britain, which ignored its duty to apply the principle "well-being and development of such peoples" (the inhabitants) is the cause of the conflict.

(COMMENT)

You make the case for three principle ideas here.

• Invasion of hostile Jews from Europe.
• Intent to colonize and dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants.
• Duty to apply the principle well-being and development of such peoples.
​

• The Allied Powers encouraged immigration. There was no invasion.
• The intent was to establish a Jewish National Home, and not "dispossess and/or expel the native inhabitants."
• The principles well-being and development, this was actually achieved for any Christian or Muslim residence that remained with the sovereignty and independence of Israel.
​

On the matter of "well-being" and "human development."

The State of Israel is in the top 25 nations of the world, judged by the UN for their human development. No Arab League or Regional Government comes close to the level and ranking of Israel. The Human Development Index (HDI) is the yard stick by which any whiny Arab Palestinian can use to question Arab League (especially the Arab Palestinian) policy choices, asking how two countries compare their human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities and leadership abilities intended to achieve "well-being and development of such peoples." There is simply NO WAY that the Arab Palestinians can justify the continuous assault on Israel when it continually outstrips every single Arab League Nation (oil rich or not) in terms of "well-being and development." If there were even some Arab League nations that could compare, that would be arguable. BUT when ever single Arab League Nation falls behind Israel --- the Palestinians cannot argue that they were retarded by the Israeli Occupation. That simply cannot be true.

3. International law was violated when hostile European Jews made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine to conquer territory.

(COMMENT)

There is no point in the last 1000 years that any Jewish Nation has attacked any non-Jewish nation. Israel have been at war with elements of the Arab League since 1948. After establishing treaties Egypt and Jordan, Israel and Egypt/Jordan have ceased hostilities for decades. The same cannot be said for the countries of Lebanon and Syria. Even the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), who have consistently refused and rejected peace overtures, have deteriorated over time because they are opposed to peace.

BUT at no time in the last millennium can the HoAP claim any Jews (from anywhere) made war on the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine. The Arab League opened hostilities in 1948, and have consistently refused to make peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ouch, that's going to hurt.

Hostilities were opened by the European Jews when they invaded Palestine with the intention to colonize and dispossess the native people. The Arab League intervened in an attempt to prevent the ongoing ethnic cleansing and killing of the native Muslims and Christians by the European colonists.

The European Jews, from the start intended to invade and colonize Palestine.

Projecting again for your catholic church