One State

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Here is my proof that you're absolutely wrong:

[But it does not mention Palestine, except here:
ARTICLE I6.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.]

Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 Palestine Mandate

This is only a blog by someone who is not an expert in the original history of the territory.

PalestineBureau:
The editor + writer of this blog is Marian Houk, a reporter, journalist and analyst currently based in Jerusalem with experience at the United Nations and in the Middle East, who has followed the peace process from the June 1967 war to the present.​

This is what you just responded to me:

This is only a blog by someone who is not an expert in the original history of the territory.

PalestineBureau:
The editor + writer of this blog is Marian Houk, a reporter, journalist and analyst currently based in Jerusalem with experience at the United Nations and in the Middle East, who has followed the peace process from the June 1967 war to the present.

How does that answer my question ?

I don't see a question mark in your post.

Nvmd. I misunderstood your last post , before this one.

Either way, I have proved that the treaty of Lausanne in no way had any connection to Palestine.

Of course not. It merely released the French and British mandated territories from Turkish sovereignty so that they may become separate states.

 

[teddyearp]

And that sums up you position, correct Tinmore? All of Palestine, from the river to the sea. That video does not mention the Jews at all, so you are in favor of the Hamas charter to wipe them off the face of the map there as that is what the video alludes to.

 

[toastman]

Here is my proof that you're absolutely wrong:

[But it does not mention Palestine, except here:
ARTICLE I6.
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.]

Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 Palestine Mandate

This is only a blog by someone who is not an expert in the original history of the territory.

PalestineBureau:
The editor + writer of this blog is Marian Houk, a reporter, journalist and analyst currently based in Jerusalem with experience at the United Nations and in the Middle East, who has followed the peace process from the June 1967 war to the present.​

This is what you just responded to me:

This is only a blog by someone who is not an expert in the original history of the territory.

PalestineBureau:
The editor + writer of this blog is Marian Houk, a reporter, journalist and analyst currently based in Jerusalem with experience at the United Nations and in the Middle East, who has followed the peace process from the June 1967 war to the present.

How does that answer my question ?

I don't see a question mark in your post.

Nvmd. I misunderstood your last post , before this one.

Either way, I have proved that the treaty of Lausanne in no way had any connection to Palestine.

Of course not. It merely released the French and British mandated territories from Turkish sovereignty so that they may become separate states.

Haha now you change your story. You claimed that the Treaty of Lausanne is when Palestine became a sovereign state. That's absolutely false. Palestine in no way whatsoever had any connection to this treaty.

 

[pbel]

This is only a blog by someone who is not an expert in the original history of the territory.

PalestineBureau:
The editor + writer of this blog is Marian Houk, a reporter, journalist and analyst currently based in Jerusalem with experience at the United Nations and in the Middle East, who has followed the peace process from the June 1967 war to the present.​

This is what you just responded to me:

This is only a blog by someone who is not an expert in the original history of the territory.

PalestineBureau:
The editor + writer of this blog is Marian Houk, a reporter, journalist and analyst currently based in Jerusalem with experience at the United Nations and in the Middle East, who has followed the peace process from the June 1967 war to the present.

How does that answer my question ?

I don't see a question mark in your post.

Nvmd. I misunderstood your last post , before this one.

Either way, I have proved that the treaty of Lausanne in no way had any connection to Palestine.

Of course not. It merely released the French and British mandated territories from Turkish sovereignty so that they may become separate states.

Haha now you change your story. You claimed that the Treaty of Lausanne is when Palestine became a sovereign state. That's absolutely false. Palestine in no way whatsoever had any connection to this treaty.

I don't know what Sovereignty has to do with it? National rights if claimed must have the History of their claim of residence, language and culture to claim self-rule or sovereignty...Look at Crimea or Scotland, history language and culture coincide with their claims, yet none of them have sovereignty but can claim it easily.

 

[toastman]

This is what you just responded to me:

This is only a blog by someone who is not an expert in the original history of the territory.

PalestineBureau:
The editor + writer of this blog is Marian Houk, a reporter, journalist and analyst currently based in Jerusalem with experience at the United Nations and in the Middle East, who has followed the peace process from the June 1967 war to the present.

How does that answer my question ?

I don't see a question mark in your post.

Nvmd. I misunderstood your last post , before this one.

Either way, I have proved that the treaty of Lausanne in no way had any connection to Palestine.

Of course not. It merely released the French and British mandated territories from Turkish sovereignty so that they may become separate states.

Haha now you change your story. You claimed that the Treaty of Lausanne is when Palestine became a sovereign state. That's absolutely false. Palestine in no way whatsoever had any connection to this treaty.

I don't know what Sovereignty has to do with it? National rights if claimed must have the History of their claim of residence, language and culture to claim self-rule or sovereignty...Look at Crimea or Scotland, history language and culture coincide with their claims, yet none of them have sovereignty but can claim it easily.

Because Tinmore is claiming something that is not even remotely true, and that I have refuted 100 times.

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

(OPPOSING VIEW)

First, the "3 million registered Palestinian refugees" (that is registered with the UNRWA) through the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) are not necessarily the same as legally defined refugees under International Law under the Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees --- Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees --- Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

The Jewish State, as initially adopted in concept, has some established precedents and foundational principles that are not "uniquely" Jewish in origin, nature and source:

√ The land of Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and the birthplace of the State of Israel.
√ The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its right to self-determination according to its cultural and historic heritage.

• THE SAN REMO CONVENTION 1920: Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
• LON Mandate for Palestine: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people;
• Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine: The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure than an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.
• Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine: On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

Its clear that the future of Palestine will be determined by the demographics, not today or tomorrow but unstoppable.

Israel and Palestine need a one-state solution Al Jazeera America
A one-state solution
If Abbas really wants radical change for the Palestinians’ plight, he should dissolve the Palestinian Authority and turn over control of the West Bank to Israel — as he has repeatedly threatened to do — and then encourage Palestinians to demand annexation with all rights, protections and benefits granted to other Israelis. Given the one-state reality on the ground, removing the illusion of sovereign Arab institutions would render Israel responsible for the population it has subjugated for the last 70 years. A failure to rise to this challenge would expose it as an apartheid state.
Israel justifies its mistreatment of Palestinians by claiming that Arabs are not its responsibility. Whether they live within Israel or the occupied territories, they all ultimately belong in the unsettled West Bank and should be provided for by their own government — an attitude emphasized by Israel’s recent “nationality law” which defines the country as an explicitly, perhaps exclusively, Jewish state.
But in a unified Israel, Arabs would actually be the majority if afforded the same right to return given to the Jewish diaspora; there are 3 million registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan alone. And demographic projections suggest Jews will soon be the minority even without considering the Palestinian diaspora. Accordingly, Palestinians would have much more leverage in a one-state scenario; their quest would then be for equitable power sharing and civil rights.

(COMMENT)

The intent and purpose of the Arab in promoting a "One State" Solution is clear: to overrun and flood the Jewish National Home in such a way as to enable Arab Majority that will be able to demolish the Jewish National Home from the inside-out. Pushing the Jewish People out of the Jewish National Home and replacing the culture with their own Islamic Brand.

The decision makers of the Principle Allied Powers leading up to these events were educated through the mid-to-late 19th Century as the Arabs were persecuting the Jewish people.

• 1828: Massacre of Jews in Baghdad ---
• 1860s: Jews of Libya were subjected to punitive taxation ---
• 1864: Massacre 500 Jews in Marrakech and 300 in Fezin Morocco ---
• 1867: Massacre of Jews in Barfurush in 1867 ---
• 1891: Muslim leadership in Jerusalem petition the Sultan to prohibit the entry of Jews arriving from Russia ---
• 1897: Jews murdered and synagogues pillaged in Tripolitania ---

These events (just to name a few) weighed heavily on the minds that were to influence the judgement to save and protect the Jewish People and their culture throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. While these event are to us, a century or more old, it was recent and contemporary events to them. And as the anti-Semitic violence grew in Europe in the early 20th Century, as well as fresh Arab-Jewish confrontations in the Mandate Territories grew, new reasons emerged (from the 1929 Riots to the Holocaust) to reinforce the original decision to establish a Jewish National Home.

The Arab promotion of a "One State" Solution is an attempt to make an end-run around the wisdom to create a safe haven that would protect the Jewish People from the terrorizing external influences that might once again -- throw them into the abyss.

Most Respectfully,
R

It really is a tragedy historically for the Jews, however it was the Europeans by far (not even close) that murdered them...They also created Israel by political fiat from a land where the people there had NOTHING to do with this killing and that logic escapes you...

This is not lost on the Arabs and yet they offer a peace deal that splits the land along with trade and acceptance...

The Israeli conquests and cultural greed will be their undoing...The 600 million Arabs will win this war of attrition in time, however long it takes them...That is the reality and history of all past invaders to this land...

Always good to see someone with a good knowledge of history. Perhaps you could help me out here. What was that person's name who was the ruler of the Palestinian State just before the Jews overthrew him/her? Was that a state, a nation, or a country back then? Did they have a democracy, a dictator, or a socialist nation? I am assuming they had a flag of course. I would love to see a picture of it. You know, the one the Jews tore down obviously.

PS

What NationState did the Jews invade from and who was their leader?

They did not invade at all, they were invited by the LANDS LEGAL OWNERS UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW. Unless you can show differently of course

 

[Phoenall]

I too am for a one state solution. Israel must find a way to send the Palestinian squatters back to their indigenous Arab country homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

The Jews are the squatters, they should go back to Europe where they came from. Let there be peace.

Who invited the arab muslims to Palestine then, and when were they given the land for their NATIONAL HOME

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

(OPPOSING VIEW)

First, the "3 million registered Palestinian refugees" (that is registered with the UNRWA) through the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) are not necessarily the same as legally defined refugees under International Law under the Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees --- Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees --- Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

The Jewish State, as initially adopted in concept, has some established precedents and foundational principles that are not "uniquely" Jewish in origin, nature and source:

√ The land of Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and the birthplace of the State of Israel.
√ The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its right to self-determination according to its cultural and historic heritage.

• THE SAN REMO CONVENTION 1920: Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
• LON Mandate for Palestine: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people;
• Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine: The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure than an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.
• Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine: On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

Its clear that the future of Palestine will be determined by the demographics, not today or tomorrow but unstoppable.

Israel and Palestine need a one-state solution Al Jazeera America
A one-state solution
If Abbas really wants radical change for the Palestinians’ plight, he should dissolve the Palestinian Authority and turn over control of the West Bank to Israel — as he has repeatedly threatened to do — and then encourage Palestinians to demand annexation with all rights, protections and benefits granted to other Israelis. Given the one-state reality on the ground, removing the illusion of sovereign Arab institutions would render Israel responsible for the population it has subjugated for the last 70 years. A failure to rise to this challenge would expose it as an apartheid state.
Israel justifies its mistreatment of Palestinians by claiming that Arabs are not its responsibility. Whether they live within Israel or the occupied territories, they all ultimately belong in the unsettled West Bank and should be provided for by their own government — an attitude emphasized by Israel’s recent “nationality law” which defines the country as an explicitly, perhaps exclusively, Jewish state.
But in a unified Israel, Arabs would actually be the majority if afforded the same right to return given to the Jewish diaspora; there are 3 million registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan alone. And demographic projections suggest Jews will soon be the minority even without considering the Palestinian diaspora. Accordingly, Palestinians would have much more leverage in a one-state scenario; their quest would then be for equitable power sharing and civil rights.

(COMMENT)

The intent and purpose of the Arab in promoting a "One State" Solution is clear: to overrun and flood the Jewish National Home in such a way as to enable Arab Majority that will be able to demolish the Jewish National Home from the inside-out. Pushing the Jewish People out of the Jewish National Home and replacing the culture with their own Islamic Brand.

The decision makers of the Principle Allied Powers leading up to these events were educated through the mid-to-late 19th Century as the Arabs were persecuting the Jewish people.

• 1828: Massacre of Jews in Baghdad ---
• 1860s: Jews of Libya were subjected to punitive taxation ---
• 1864: Massacre 500 Jews in Marrakech and 300 in Fezin Morocco ---
• 1867: Massacre of Jews in Barfurush in 1867 ---
• 1891: Muslim leadership in Jerusalem petition the Sultan to prohibit the entry of Jews arriving from Russia ---
• 1897: Jews murdered and synagogues pillaged in Tripolitania ---

These events (just to name a few) weighed heavily on the minds that were to influence the judgement to save and protect the Jewish People and their culture throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. While these event are to us, a century or more old, it was recent and contemporary events to them. And as the anti-Semitic violence grew in Europe in the early 20th Century, as well as fresh Arab-Jewish confrontations in the Mandate Territories grew, new reasons emerged (from the 1929 Riots to the Holocaust) to reinforce the original decision to establish a Jewish National Home.

The Arab promotion of a "One State" Solution is an attempt to make an end-run around the wisdom to create a safe haven that would protect the Jewish People from the terrorizing external influences that might once again -- throw them into the abyss.

Most Respectfully,
R

It really is a tragedy historically for the Jews, however it was the Europeans by far (not even close) that murdered them...They also created Israel by political fiat from a land where the people there had NOTHING to do with this killing and that logic escapes you...

This is not lost on the Arabs and yet they offer a peace deal that splits the land along with trade and acceptance...

The Israeli conquests and cultural greed will be their undoing...The 600 million Arabs will win this war of attrition in time, however long it takes them...That is the reality and history of all past invaders to this land...

Always good to see someone with a good knowledge of history. Perhaps you could help me out here. What was that person's name who was the ruler of the Palestinian State just before the Jews overthrew him/her? Was that a state, a nation, or a country back then? Did they have a democracy, a dictator, or a socialist nation? I am assuming they had a flag of course. I would love to see a picture of it. You know, the one the Jews tore down obviously.

PS

What NationState did the Jews invade from and who was their leader?

They did not invade at all, they were invited by the LANDS LEGAL OWNERS UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW. Unless you can show differently of course

Ownership has nothing to do with Sovereignty and ownership of the area was by far Arab...

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

(OPPOSING VIEW)

First, the "3 million registered Palestinian refugees" (that is registered with the UNRWA) through the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) are not necessarily the same as legally defined refugees under International Law under the Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees --- Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees --- Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

The Jewish State, as initially adopted in concept, has some established precedents and foundational principles that are not "uniquely" Jewish in origin, nature and source:

√ The land of Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and the birthplace of the State of Israel.
√ The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its right to self-determination according to its cultural and historic heritage.

• THE SAN REMO CONVENTION 1920: Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
• LON Mandate for Palestine: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people;
• Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine: The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure than an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.
• Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine: On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

Its clear that the future of Palestine will be determined by the demographics, not today or tomorrow but unstoppable.

Israel and Palestine need a one-state solution Al Jazeera America
A one-state solution
If Abbas really wants radical change for the Palestinians’ plight, he should dissolve the Palestinian Authority and turn over control of the West Bank to Israel — as he has repeatedly threatened to do — and then encourage Palestinians to demand annexation with all rights, protections and benefits granted to other Israelis. Given the one-state reality on the ground, removing the illusion of sovereign Arab institutions would render Israel responsible for the population it has subjugated for the last 70 years. A failure to rise to this challenge would expose it as an apartheid state.
Israel justifies its mistreatment of Palestinians by claiming that Arabs are not its responsibility. Whether they live within Israel or the occupied territories, they all ultimately belong in the unsettled West Bank and should be provided for by their own government — an attitude emphasized by Israel’s recent “nationality law” which defines the country as an explicitly, perhaps exclusively, Jewish state.
But in a unified Israel, Arabs would actually be the majority if afforded the same right to return given to the Jewish diaspora; there are 3 million registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan alone. And demographic projections suggest Jews will soon be the minority even without considering the Palestinian diaspora. Accordingly, Palestinians would have much more leverage in a one-state scenario; their quest would then be for equitable power sharing and civil rights.

(COMMENT)

The intent and purpose of the Arab in promoting a "One State" Solution is clear: to overrun and flood the Jewish National Home in such a way as to enable Arab Majority that will be able to demolish the Jewish National Home from the inside-out. Pushing the Jewish People out of the Jewish National Home and replacing the culture with their own Islamic Brand.

The decision makers of the Principle Allied Powers leading up to these events were educated through the mid-to-late 19th Century as the Arabs were persecuting the Jewish people.

• 1828: Massacre of Jews in Baghdad ---
• 1860s: Jews of Libya were subjected to punitive taxation ---
• 1864: Massacre 500 Jews in Marrakech and 300 in Fezin Morocco ---
• 1867: Massacre of Jews in Barfurush in 1867 ---
• 1891: Muslim leadership in Jerusalem petition the Sultan to prohibit the entry of Jews arriving from Russia ---
• 1897: Jews murdered and synagogues pillaged in Tripolitania ---

These events (just to name a few) weighed heavily on the minds that were to influence the judgement to save and protect the Jewish People and their culture throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. While these event are to us, a century or more old, it was recent and contemporary events to them. And as the anti-Semitic violence grew in Europe in the early 20th Century, as well as fresh Arab-Jewish confrontations in the Mandate Territories grew, new reasons emerged (from the 1929 Riots to the Holocaust) to reinforce the original decision to establish a Jewish National Home.

The Arab promotion of a "One State" Solution is an attempt to make an end-run around the wisdom to create a safe haven that would protect the Jewish People from the terrorizing external influences that might once again -- throw them into the abyss.

Most Respectfully,
R

It really is a tragedy historically for the Jews, however it was the Europeans by far (not even close) that murdered them...They also created Israel by political fiat from a land where the people there had NOTHING to do with this killing and that logic escapes you...

This is not lost on the Arabs and yet they offer a peace deal that splits the land along with trade and acceptance...

The Israeli conquests and cultural greed will be their undoing...The 600 million Arabs will win this war of attrition in time, however long it takes them...That is the reality and history of all past invaders to this land...

Always good to see someone with a good knowledge of history. Perhaps you could help me out here. What was that person's name who was the ruler of the Palestinian State just before the Jews overthrew him/her? Was that a state, a nation, or a country back then? Did they have a democracy, a dictator, or a socialist nation? I am assuming they had a flag of course. I would love to see a picture of it. You know, the one the Jews tore down obviously.

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

No Abdul not Jerusalem but the nation of Palestine, which did not exist until 1988. They way they are going it will soon cease to exist again.

 

[Phoenall]

This is what you just responded to me:

This is only a blog by someone who is not an expert in the original history of the territory.

PalestineBureau:
The editor + writer of this blog is Marian Houk, a reporter, journalist and analyst currently based in Jerusalem with experience at the United Nations and in the Middle East, who has followed the peace process from the June 1967 war to the present.

How does that answer my question ?

I don't see a question mark in your post.

Nvmd. I misunderstood your last post , before this one.

Either way, I have proved that the treaty of Lausanne in no way had any connection to Palestine.

Of course not. It merely released the French and British mandated territories from Turkish sovereignty so that they may become separate states.

Haha now you change your story. You claimed that the Treaty of Lausanne is when Palestine became a sovereign state. That's absolutely false. Palestine in no way whatsoever had any connection to this treaty.

I don't know what Sovereignty has to do with it? National rights if claimed must have the History of their claim of residence, language and culture to claim self-rule or sovereignty...Look at Crimea or Scotland, history language and culture coincide with their claims, yet none of them have sovereignty but can claim it easily.

Here you go again with your attempted back dating of current International law to meet with your false premise of what should be applied to 1948 social mores.

Scotland does have sovereignty and never lost any aspects of it since the Act of Union in the 1770's.

So when did Palestine become a fully fledged internationally recognised sovereign nation with a government, capital city, passports, ID cards and nationality ? What treaty gave the people these powers and who led them in their endeavours towards acceptance.

 

[pbel]

I too am for a one state solution. Israel must find a way to send the Palestinian squatters back to their indigenous Arab country homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

The Jews are the squatters, they should go back to Europe where they came from. Let there be peace.

Who invited the arab muslims to Palestine then, and when were they given the land for their NATIONAL HOME

they never left.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And that sums up you position, correct Tinmore? All of Palestine, from the river to the sea. That video does not mention the Jews at all, so you are in favor of the Hamas charter to wipe them off the face of the map there as that is what the video alludes to.

That video does not mention the Jews at all,...​

Yes it did.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't see a question mark in your post.

Nvmd. I misunderstood your last post , before this one.

Either way, I have proved that the treaty of Lausanne in no way had any connection to Palestine.

Of course not. It merely released the French and British mandated territories from Turkish sovereignty so that they may become separate states.

Haha now you change your story. You claimed that the Treaty of Lausanne is when Palestine became a sovereign state. That's absolutely false. Palestine in no way whatsoever had any connection to this treaty.

I don't know what Sovereignty has to do with it? National rights if claimed must have the History of their claim of residence, language and culture to claim self-rule or sovereignty...Look at Crimea or Scotland, history language and culture coincide with their claims, yet none of them have sovereignty but can claim it easily.

Here you go again with your attempted back dating of current International law to meet with your false premise of what should be applied to 1948 social mores.

Scotland does have sovereignty and never lost any aspects of it since the Act of Union in the 1770's.

So when did Palestine become a fully fledged internationally recognised sovereign nation with a government, capital city, passports, ID cards and nationality ? What treaty gave the people these powers and who led them in their endeavours towards acceptance.

Here you go again with your attempted back dating of current International law...​

Those laws changed?

Got a link?

 

[toastman]

Tinmore, why do you bother asking people for links if you're still not going to believe their claim ?

 

[Phoenall]

I too am for a one state solution. Israel must find a way to send the Palestinian squatters back to their indigenous Arab country homelands. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

The Jews are the squatters, they should go back to Europe where they came from. Let there be peace.

Who invited the arab muslims to Palestine then, and when were they given the land for their NATIONAL HOME

they never left.

They refused to settle when the Ottomans asked them back in the 1850's, so they invited the Jews to make the land fertile. That was when the arab muslims started to turn up when the land was fertile and bountifull, the promise of work and wages attracted them at a time many arab muslim crops in the surrounding lands were failing.

 

[Phoenall]

Nvmd. I misunderstood your last post , before this one.

Either way, I have proved that the treaty of Lausanne in no way had any connection to Palestine.

Of course not. It merely released the French and British mandated territories from Turkish sovereignty so that they may become separate states.

Haha now you change your story. You claimed that the Treaty of Lausanne is when Palestine became a sovereign state. That's absolutely false. Palestine in no way whatsoever had any connection to this treaty.

I don't know what Sovereignty has to do with it? National rights if claimed must have the History of their claim of residence, language and culture to claim self-rule or sovereignty...Look at Crimea or Scotland, history language and culture coincide with their claims, yet none of them have sovereignty but can claim it easily.

Here you go again with your attempted back dating of current International law to meet with your false premise of what should be applied to 1948 social mores.

Scotland does have sovereignty and never lost any aspects of it since the Act of Union in the 1770's.

So when did Palestine become a fully fledged internationally recognised sovereign nation with a government, capital city, passports, ID cards and nationality ? What treaty gave the people these powers and who led them in their endeavours towards acceptance.

Here you go again with your attempted back dating of current International law...​

Those laws changed?

Got a link?

No they didn't, what happened is new laws became Customary but they can not be back dated to a previous era. So the right to a national home for the Jews in Palestine can not be altered by more recent laws, just as the land entitlement to Palestine can not be altered either. The UN acted beyond its capacity by partitioning Palestine as they did

 

[Kondor3]

One State?

Says who?

An op-ed piece by al Jazeera?

That window closed decades ago.

Never gonna happen.

No matter how many PaloNazis, fifth-columnists, propaganda shills and IslamoNazi useful idiots come oozing out of the woodwork, clamoring for it and braying like donkeys.

Thanks for the excellent laugh, though, so early in the morning.

 

[Daniyel]

Hmmf if Europe is willing to establish a fully self governing Shari'a state for all the Muslim immigrants out of their land - I'll be the first to advocate for establishing another one for the Palestinians ..No wait, the Europeans tried that and now they're deep in the mud, do you have any better ideas?

 

[montelatici]

Israel is a single Apartheid state now. There will never be a second state. Jews will rule until the demographics become overwhelming against them in a few generations.