No 'Deals' With Israel, Unless We Get Everything We Want

[Billo_Really]

Why, Billy, this forum must really be important to you that you are posting at such hours instead of getting your sleep. I thought you were a working man still and needed to get a good amount of shut-eye during the night. I am sure most of the good people in Long Beach were sleeping at this time unless they were on the graveyard shift.

I'm collecting unemployment right now and have all the time in the world to answer your posts 24/7. You let me worry about my sleep.

Anyhow, who knows if the UN is fudging on the figures.

Why would they?

Do you have any evidence that would indicate such?

Maybe you could contact that Egyptian official who told the Gazans to come back to Egypt. He must know something. Besides, there have been many accounts (posted previously on another message board in the past) of visitors who passed through the area and didn't see all hese Arabs that you want us to believe were there. What they saw were some Bedouins, and when they got to the big cities, they saw the Jews. I am sure that since many here in the U.S. can pick up accents from the different states, such as those from the South or the New York City area, the British officials stationed in the area were able to pick up the different accents of the Arabs coming in from the different surrounding countries, and that is why they reported back that the Arabs were flooding into the country. Don't you see the same situation today where you see people coming from their impoverished countries into America, Canada and Europe?

It doesn't matter how much conjecture you throw at this topic, it doesn't change the fact that there was an indigenous population of arabs living in that area for generations, who were the majority population and owned 90% of the land.

According to UN records...

The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora".

During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close.

Here are the land rights at that time...





...and subsequent resolutions have confirmed this fact.

Time to embrace the horror, little Suzy, there were people already living there when the Jews moved in. And yes, there was Palestinian-Jews living there as well. But those are "good Jews", who lived in peace with their arab neighbors. Not the "bad Jews" (Zionists), who moved in later, bringing their racist, apartheid, violent policies with them.

 

[Sally]

Why, Billy, this forum must really be important to you that you are posting at such hours instead of getting your sleep. I thought you were a working man still and needed to get a good amount of shut-eye during the night. I am sure most of the good people in Long Beach were sleeping at this time unless they were on the graveyard shift.

I'm collecting unemployment right now and have all the time in the world to answer your posts 24/7. You let me worry about my sleep.

Anyhow, who knows if the UN is fudging on the figures.

Why would they?

Do you have any evidence that would indicate such?

Maybe you could contact that Egyptian official who told the Gazans to come back to Egypt. He must know something. Besides, there have been many accounts (posted previously on another message board in the past) of visitors who passed through the area and didn't see all hese Arabs that you want us to believe were there. What they saw were some Bedouins, and when they got to the big cities, they saw the Jews. I am sure that since many here in the U.S. can pick up accents from the different states, such as those from the South or the New York City area, the British officials stationed in the area were able to pick up the different accents of the Arabs coming in from the different surrounding countries, and that is why they reported back that the Arabs were flooding into the country. Don't you see the same situation today where you see people coming from their impoverished countries into America, Canada and Europe?

It doesn't matter how much conjecture you throw at this topic, it doesn't change the fact that there was an indigenous population of arabs living in that area for generations, who were the majority population and owned 90% of the land.

According to UN records...

The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora".

During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close.

Here are the land rights at that time...





...and subsequent resolutions have confirmed this fact.

Time to embrace the horror, little Suzy, there were people already living there when the Jews moved in. And yes, there was Palestinian-Jews living there as well. But those are "good Jews", who lived in peace with their arab neighbors. Not the "bad Jews" (Zionists), who moved in later, bringing their racist, apartheid, violent policies with them.

Secondly, regardless of what you say, Billy, I am sure that the readers of these forums are quite aware that you care nothing about what is going on in the rest of the Middle East, nor do you even care what is going on in the rest of the world. There are many, many forums covering different areas, but you are absent on them. I really don't care if you want to be a good Dhimwit (I am sure by now you know the definition of that word which was coined not too long ago), but you really are so obvious by just focusing on the Israel/Palestine conflict. You can believe that there were millions and millions of Arabs living there if it makes you happy, but I prefer to believe the first-hand accounts of the British officials who were actually there, saw what was happening, and reported this to Winston Churchill. One really has to giggle at Billy's "racist, apartheid, violent policies with them" when we see what is happening in the Muslim countries around the world. In addcition, it is quite amusing how people like Billy have become scholars of what is happening in one particular region of the world, and all these "scholars" seem to be using the same sources because we have heard the same things for years and years on other forums. However, if a poster like Billy wants us to believe that he is such a "scholar" in this one area of the Middle East, who are we to upset his fun? Hmm, I wonder if Cal State University Long Beach has a class on the Middle East and an unbiased professor to teach this course where Billy can enroll and learn all about the Middle East from the time of the early people up to the present. It should be a very interesting course which Billy might enjoy.

 

[aris2chat]

Churches and arabs outside of the territory owned and sold land, it was not all owned by "palestinians".
Most of the indigenous arab population were tenet farmers or rented. There was also a large number of arab immigrants that came looking for work from other arab states during the mandate.
Land ownership was quite complex under the Ottoman, and the mandate did not make it easier.
Many palestinians that could have registered land refused to because they did not want to be enlisted in military service or did not want or could not pay the taxes. Just because you lay down a blanket or plant a tree does not make the land yours. Just because you have a key to a door does not mean you have a deed to the land. Servitude and slavery were a part of arab society. Few were free in the sense of being able to own land. They might have been tied to the land for generations, but had no legal claim to it.
There is very little that is ever simple or obvious about the middle east. More often there are layers upon layers like an onion or shrouded under mountains of sand.

 

[Sally]

Why, Billy, this forum must really be important to you that you are posting at such hours instead of getting your sleep. I thought you were a working man still and needed to get a good amount of shut-eye during the night. I am sure most of the good people in Long Beach were sleeping at this time unless they were on the graveyard shift.

I'm collecting unemployment right now and have all the time in the world to answer your posts 24/7. You let me worry about my sleep.

Why would they?

Do you have any evidence that would indicate such?

It doesn't matter how much conjecture you throw at this topic, it doesn't change the fact that there was an indigenous population of arabs living in that area for generations, who were the majority population and owned 90% of the land.

According to UN records...

The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora".

During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close.

Here are the land rights at that time...





...and subsequent resolutions have confirmed this fact.

Time to embrace the horror, little Suzy, there were people already living there when the Jews moved in. And yes, there was Palestinian-Jews living there as well. But those are "good Jews", who lived in peace with their arab neighbors. Not the "bad Jews" (Zionists), who moved in later, bringing their racist, apartheid, violent policies with them.

Secondly, regardless of what you say, Billy, I am sure that the readers of these forums are quite aware that you care nothing about what is going on in the rest of the Middle East, nor do you even care what is going on in the rest of the world. There are many, many forums covering different areas, but you are absent on them. I really don't care if you want to be a good Dhimwit (I am sure by now you know the definition of that word which was coined not too long ago), but you really are so obvious by just focusing on the Israel/Palestine conflict. You can believe that there were millions and millions of Arabs living there if it makes you happy, but I prefer to believe the first-hand accounts of the British officials who were actually there, saw what was happening, and reported this to Winston Churchill. One really has to giggle at Billy's "racist, apartheid, violent policies with them" when we see what is happening in the Muslim countries around the world. In addcition, it is quite amusing how people like Billy have become scholars of what is happening in one particular region of the world, and all these "scholars" seem to be using the same sources because we have heard the same things for years and years on other forums. However, if a poster like Billy wants us to believe that he is such a "scholar" in this one area of the Middle East, who are we to upset his fun? Hmm, I wonder if Cal State University Long Beach has a class on the Middle East and an unbiased professor to teach this course where Billy can enroll and learn all about the Middle East from the time of the early people up to the present. It should be a very interesting course which Billy might enjoy.

Sorry, Billy, but I wanted to give you some help in your job search, and this didn't show up. Hope it helps you in your job search as unemployment can't be that fun, especially in this economy when things are very high.

Why December Is Prime Time For Your Job Search - Careers Articles

 

[aris2chat]

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: 12/13 Links Pt2: The legal case for Judea and Samaria, EU official defends paying Palestinians not to work

This might be a pro-Israeli site but that does not mean everything written is incorrect.
Just move evidence to consider.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you will find the word "foreign."

Gee, Rocco, do you have to blow so much smoke. It is difficult to find your points when they are buried in a page of irrelevance.

You do not like me to us the term foreigner. I use the term because it is universally understood. Besides foreigner, or perhaps alien, what term could be used to define someone from someplace else?

Note that the UN does use the term foreign.
--------------

(COMMENT)

But more to the point is the question you raised.

Where does it say that any class of people have less of a right? Where does it say "foreigners" have less of a right to self-determination?

Your thesis is, and has consistently been that the Jewish Immigrants have less of a right to self-determination than the Arab Palestinian. Where does it say that?

And --- when did these special right that the Arab Palestinians have come into being?

Most Respectfully,
R

I have never said that anyone had special or lesser rights. That has never been the question.

The right to self determination states that all people have the right to self determination, without external interference. This tells us that there are "internal" people who have the right to self determination and "external" people who are not allowed to interfere.

Whenever the people are mentioned in the right to self determination it is always in the plural, i.e. peoples. There are many different peoples in the world. The French are "a people" who have the right to self determination in France. The British are "a people" who have the right to self determination in Britain.

The French cannot go to Britain and claim the right to self determination because they are not British. They are external. They are a different people.

The Palestinians are "a people" with a shared culture and defined by international borders.

The Zionists did not "immigrate" to Palestine to be a part of Palestine. They maintained their separate and foreign identity. They remained external to Palestine.

 

[Billo_Really]

Sorry, Billy, but I wanted to give you some help in your job search, and this didn't show up. Hope it helps you in your job search as unemployment can't be that fun, especially in this economy when things are very high.

Why December Is Prime Time For Your Job Search - Careers Articles

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.

BTW, I interview on Monday for a job that looks promising.

 

[Billo_Really]

Churches and arabs outside of the territory owned and sold land, it was not all owned by "palestinians".
Most of the indigenous arab population were tenet farmers or rented. There was also a large number of arab immigrants that came looking for work from other arab states during the mandate.
Land ownership was quite complex under the Ottoman, and the mandate did not make it easier.
Many palestinians that could have registered land refused to because they did not want to be enlisted in military service or did not want or could not pay the taxes. Just because you lay down a blanket or plant a tree does not make the land yours. Just because you have a key to a door does not mean you have a deed to the land. Servitude and slavery were a part of arab society. Few were free in the sense of being able to own land. They might have been tied to the land for generations, but had no legal claim to it.
There is very little that is ever simple or obvious about the middle east. More often there are layers upon layers like an onion or shrouded under mountains of sand.

By that same token, you can't just move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

 

[Billo_Really]

Secondly, regardless of what you say, Billy, I am sure that the readers of these forums are quite aware that you care nothing about what is going on in the rest of the Middle East, nor do you even care what is going on in the rest of the world.

No shit! I think I've stated that more than once.

There are many, many forums covering different areas, but you are absent on them.

So what! I don't see you posting in the sports forum. Are you some kind of Laker-hater?

I really don't care if you want to be a good Dhimwit (I am sure by now you know the definition of that word which was coined not too long ago), but you really are so obvious by just focusing on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Obvious what?

You can believe that there were millions and millions of Arabs living there if it makes you happy, but I prefer to believe the first-hand accounts of the British officials who were actually there, saw what was happening, and reported this to Winston Churchill.

You don't think the UN report I was quoting from, included those first hand accounts from British officials?

One really has to giggle at Billy's "racist, apartheid, violent policies with them" when we see what is happening in the Muslim countries around the world.

What's happening around the world today, has nothing to do with migrating Zionists bringing with them racist, apartheid policies.

In addcition, it is quite amusing how people like Billy have become scholars of what is happening in one particular region of the world, and all these "scholars" seem to be using the same sources because we have heard the same things for years and years on other forums.

Did you ever think the reason you're hearing the same things is because it's true?

However, if a poster like Billy wants us to believe that he is such a "scholar" in this one area of the Middle East, who are we to upset his fun? Hmm, I wonder if Cal State University Long Beach has a class on the Middle East and an unbiased professor to teach this course where Billy can enroll and learn all about the Middle East from the time of the early people up to the present. It should be a very interesting course which Billy might enjoy.

I never said I was a scholar. I never tried to act like a scholar. And I don't give a shit about what people believe.

Why don't you try addressing the points I make in my posts, instead of spending all your time personally attacking me or trying to change the subject?

 

[Kondor3]

Billy-Boy is just here for the arguments...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You've made some error in the interpretation.

I have never said that anyone had special or lesser rights. That has never been the question.

The right to self determination states that all people have the right to self determination, without external interference. This tells us that there are "internal" people who have the right to self determination and "external" people who are not allowed to interfere.

(COMMENT)

The external interference refers to (in the case of the Mandate of Palestine) those influences not invited by the Mandatory.

The territory control rested with the Mandatory, the Allied Powers, and the UN. The intent was to prevent external interference with the Administration of the Mandatory, the Allied Powers, and the UN.

The Jewish immigration was not an external interference. It was the principle goal and objective of the Mandatory, the Allied Powers, and the UN.

Whenever the people are mentioned in the right to self determination it is always in the plural, i.e. peoples. There are many different peoples in the world. The French are "a people" who have the right to self determination in France. The British are "a people" who have the right to self determination in Britain.

The French cannot go to Britain and claim the right to self determination because they are not British. They are external. They are a different people.

(COMMENT)

Bad analogy. The French can go to the UK, if they are invited. And the French could attempt to change the nature of their destiny if they were strong enough. The same is true of the US. People come to the US and become citizens. They have the right to self-determination.

The Jewish came on invitation and encouragement of the territorial Mandatory, for the express purpose of becoming citizens and reconstituting their national home under the development of self-governing institutions.

The Palestinians are "a people" with a shared culture and defined by international borders.

(COMMENT)

The Territorial Mandate had defined borders that were arbitrarily constructed at the discretion of the Mandatory. The Palestinians are called Palestinians because the Allied Powers called them Palestinians and named the Mandate the same. They could have just as easily named it the Mandate of the Levant.

The Zionists did not "immigrate" to Palestine to be a part of Palestine. They maintained their separate and foreign identity. They remained external to Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Oh wow... The entire purpose of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was to reach an understanding pertaining to "National Aspirations." It was always about nationalism, both Arab and Jewish. Why do you think the Allied Powers passed out Kingships in the Middle East like they were candy; but nowhere else. It is what the Arab wanted.

It is all about power and influence; especially on the part of the Arab.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Jewish immigration was not an external interference. It was the principle goal and objective of the Mandatory, the Allied Powers, and the UN.

Were they Palestinian?

 

[Kondor3]

Levantinians?

 

[Sally]

Billy-Boy is just here for the arguments...

Maybe you are right. Let's keep our fingers crossed that he gets the job he is interviewing for so that he can be a contented fellow and not need a scapegoat so much. I certainly hope, though, that if he is applying for a job in an office, he gets a haircut and smiles at the interviewer more naturally than what we see in his picture.

I find it funny what Billy says about me not posting in a Sports Forum. Actually I knew Elgin Baylor who was the manager of the L.A. Clippers. and his little girl (she probably is in her late 20's, early 30's by now) really liked me so much that she wanted to take Elgin's mother up to my house to meet me when his mother was visiting one time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The same is true of the US. People come to the US and become citizens. They have the right to self-determination.

The Zionists did not go to Palestine to be a part of Palestine. They were completely separate. They had separate religious, cultural, and political institutions. They had separate Schools and military. They had a separate economy. They were a project of the foreign World Zionist Organization.

They were a separate foreign entity inside Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh wow... The entire purpose of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement...

Were they Palestinian?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians are called Palestinians because the Allied Powers called them Palestinians and named the Mandate the same. They could have just as easily named it the Mandate of the Levant.

OK, and?

 

[aris2chat]

Sad to say, if you buy the property or pay the back taxes and register the property, then yes you can move in since it is now yours.
Most property that was bought up became state property and is then rented. There is very little that is privately owned. Most money was raised privately to buy the land for Israel. Those who were living and working on the land before it was sold or registered had no claim.
Some farm workers were hired by jewish farmers while others left to find jobs in the growing towns and cities, jobs created by jewish or european investments.

Arabs were eager to sell land, even Arafat's family sold land in Jerusalem to jews.
Egyptians and Lebanese also owned large areas and sold them to jewish buyers. The fact that arab workers lived on the land did not give them the right to claim they owned the land.
Many cases have been brought To Israeli court and awards have been made in favor of palestinians, but not all. Deeds were fabricated in Beirut at a printers in the camps. Land records during the mandate and ottoman do not support the majority of palestinians.
Turkey opened the land registry archives in Ankara to help the palestinians I think about five years ago. Archive documents used to be scatted and difficult to wade through.
Neither Jordan nor the palestinians can legally nullify sale of land because they have sellers remorse. It might be a moral shot of adreniline to the palestinian cause but in a court room it is not valid.

Churches and arabs outside of the territory owned and sold land, it was not all owned by "palestinians".
Most of the indigenous arab population were tenet farmers or rented. There was also a large number of arab immigrants that came looking for work from other arab states during the mandate.
Land ownership was quite complex under the Ottoman, and the mandate did not make it easier.
Many palestinians that could have registered land refused to because they did not want to be enlisted in military service or did not want or could not pay the taxes. Just because you lay down a blanket or plant a tree does not make the land yours. Just because you have a key to a door does not mean you have a deed to the land. Servitude and slavery were a part of arab society. Few were free in the sense of being able to own land. They might have been tied to the land for generations, but had no legal claim to it.
There is very little that is ever simple or obvious about the middle east. More often there are layers upon layers like an onion or shrouded under mountains of sand.

By that same token, you can't just move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So you are saying that the Israelis do not have a country either.

Virtually every house sits on leased land.

Like a big trailer park.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This make little difference to sovereignty.

So you are saying that the Israelis do not have a country either.

Virtually every house sits on leased land.

Like a big trailer park.

(COMMENT)

Renters (like other citizens/permanent residents) have the right to self-determination; which may include exercising sovereignty.

Land ownership (a civil real estate issue) is not a criteria; although many would try to make it seem so.

Most Respectfully,
R