Palestine Today

[ForeverYoung436]

Nowadays, almost 1300 Christians, forming 390 families, are living here and considering themselves a minority that is deprived of its main rights like visiting its places of worship in the West Bank or outside of Palestine. Hence, they tend to immigrate to places where they don't have to face the Israeli restrictions imposed on the Strip.

Photo by: Mohammed Zaanoun

Do you have ANY idea of how STUPID you sound????
You talk about them being a minority and being DEPRIVED of their “ Main Rights” not being able to Visit their Houses of Worship yet the Israelis are supposed to accept being deprived of their Sacred Religions Sites?

Is deflection all you got?

If Christians are immigrating to other places outside of Gaza, it's not because of Israel, but because of Hamas and the Muslim majority in Gaza. Take a look at Christians throughout the Middle East.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, put your thinking cap on.

However, that declaration was not valid as it came after the Israeli Declaration (May 1948).

How so?

(COMMENT)

Simple, One claimed the territory already in the hands of the other. Israels claimed (in May) came before the Palestinian claim. Israel has the right to expect Palestinian "not to interfere."

Here again, are you saying that occupation voids the Palestinian's rights?

(COMMENT)

The two rights cannot coexist, since they each have the right to act (take the territory) without interference from the other.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that Palestinian territory was up for grabs. The ones with the guns get the territory?

How does this jive with the prohibition of acquiring territory by force?

That prohibition has an artificial cut-off date, which just happens to coincide with the timing of Israel's founding. Besides which, you are ignoring the Arabs' rejection of the U.N.'s Partition Plan. It seems you only follow the U.N. when it's convenient for you to do so.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Actually, it would be in the Palestinian terrorists' nature to disguise themselves as Santa Clause and hide explosives in their bags.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are twisting words here.

Are you saying that Palestinian territory was up for grabs. The ones with the guns get the territory?
How does this jive with the prohibition of acquiring territory by force?

(COMMENT)

In 1948, there was no "acquiring territory by force" in regards to the original partitions. The Arab Palestinians were the First Cause that brings us to the condition set for today.

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers. The War with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic brought to closure and the Treaty of Lausanne. And as part of that Treaty, it stipulated that (excerpt) "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab Palestinians were not a "party" to the Treaty.

The Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention wrote the backbone of the Mandate for Palestine.

The territory was not "up for grabs." It was that the leadership of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the Chairman (Mohammed Amin al-Husseini) of the committee and former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer. And take notice that the Message of Independence sent by the All Palestine Government (See Posting #14039) was signed by a former General of the Ottoman Army (Ahmed Hilmi Pasha). They were NOT parties to the conflict and they were NOT promised anything. However, even as early as 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. In January 1948, the AHC the last attempt made to a place at the table in the development of the Self-Governing Institutions. Their response was:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION” ​

The defiance exhibited by the Arab Palestinians --- the all or nothing attitude --- is the same attitude maintained throughout the Mandate Period, and deep into the conflict with a remolding of the position: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations."


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are twisting words here.

Are you saying that Palestinian territory was up for grabs. The ones with the guns get the territory?
How does this jive with the prohibition of acquiring territory by force?

(COMMENT)

In 1948, there was no "acquiring territory by force" in regards to the original partitions. The Arab Palestinians were the First Cause that brings us to the condition set for today.

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers. The War with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic brought to closure and the Treaty of Lausanne. And as part of that Treaty, it stipulated that (excerpt) "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab Palestinians were not a "party" to the Treaty.

The Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention wrote the backbone of the Mandate for Palestine.

The territory was not "up for grabs." It was that the leadership of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the Chairman (Mohammed Amin al-Husseini) of the committee and former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer. And take notice that the Message of Independence sent by the All Palestine Government (See Posting #14039) was signed by a former General of the Ottoman Army (Ahmed Hilmi Pasha). They were NOT parties to the conflict and they were NOT promised anything. However, even as early as 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. In January 1948, the AHC the last attempt made to a place at the table in the development of the Self-Governing Institutions. Their response was:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION” ​

The defiance exhibited by the Arab Palestinians --- the all or nothing attitude --- is the same attitude maintained throughout the Mandate Period, and deep into the conflict with a remolding of the position: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations."


Most Respectfully,
R

Why all of the deflection?

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The Mandates did not acquire sovereignty over the territory. They could not do with it whatever it wanted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are twisting words here.

Are you saying that Palestinian territory was up for grabs. The ones with the guns get the territory?
How does this jive with the prohibition of acquiring territory by force?

(COMMENT)

In 1948, there was no "acquiring territory by force" in regards to the original partitions. The Arab Palestinians were the First Cause that brings us to the condition set for today.

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers. The War with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic brought to closure and the Treaty of Lausanne. And as part of that Treaty, it stipulated that (excerpt) "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab Palestinians were not a "party" to the Treaty.

The Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention wrote the backbone of the Mandate for Palestine.

The territory was not "up for grabs." It was that the leadership of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the Chairman (Mohammed Amin al-Husseini) of the committee and former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer. And take notice that the Message of Independence sent by the All Palestine Government (See Posting #14039) was signed by a former General of the Ottoman Army (Ahmed Hilmi Pasha). They were NOT parties to the conflict and they were NOT promised anything. However, even as early as 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. In January 1948, the AHC the last attempt made to a place at the table in the development of the Self-Governing Institutions. Their response was:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION” ​

The defiance exhibited by the Arab Palestinians --- the all or nothing attitude --- is the same attitude maintained throughout the Mandate Period, and deep into the conflict with a remolding of the position: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations."


Most Respectfully,
R

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION

Would the US accept hacking off everything west of the Mississippi and giving it to someone else? Of course not.

Very stupid argument.

 

[toomuchtime_]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are twisting words here.

Are you saying that Palestinian territory was up for grabs. The ones with the guns get the territory?
How does this jive with the prohibition of acquiring territory by force?

(COMMENT)

In 1948, there was no "acquiring territory by force" in regards to the original partitions. The Arab Palestinians were the First Cause that brings us to the condition set for today.

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers. The War with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic brought to closure and the Treaty of Lausanne. And as part of that Treaty, it stipulated that (excerpt) "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab Palestinians were not a "party" to the Treaty.

The Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention wrote the backbone of the Mandate for Palestine.

The territory was not "up for grabs." It was that the leadership of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the Chairman (Mohammed Amin al-Husseini) of the committee and former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer. And take notice that the Message of Independence sent by the All Palestine Government (See Posting #14039) was signed by a former General of the Ottoman Army (Ahmed Hilmi Pasha). They were NOT parties to the conflict and they were NOT promised anything. However, even as early as 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. In January 1948, the AHC the last attempt made to a place at the table in the development of the Self-Governing Institutions. Their response was:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION” ​

The defiance exhibited by the Arab Palestinians --- the all or nothing attitude --- is the same attitude maintained throughout the Mandate Period, and deep into the conflict with a remolding of the position: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations."


Most Respectfully,
R

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION

Would the US accept hacking off everything west of the Mississippi and giving it to someone else? Of course not.

Very stupid argument.

lol How can the Palestinians agree to give up land since they have none?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are twisting words here.

Are you saying that Palestinian territory was up for grabs. The ones with the guns get the territory?
How does this jive with the prohibition of acquiring territory by force?

(COMMENT)

In 1948, there was no "acquiring territory by force" in regards to the original partitions. The Arab Palestinians were the First Cause that brings us to the condition set for today.

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers. The War with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic brought to closure and the Treaty of Lausanne. And as part of that Treaty, it stipulated that (excerpt) "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab Palestinians were not a "party" to the Treaty.

The Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention wrote the backbone of the Mandate for Palestine.

The territory was not "up for grabs." It was that the leadership of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the Chairman (Mohammed Amin al-Husseini) of the committee and former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer. And take notice that the Message of Independence sent by the All Palestine Government (See Posting #14039) was signed by a former General of the Ottoman Army (Ahmed Hilmi Pasha). They were NOT parties to the conflict and they were NOT promised anything. However, even as early as 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. In January 1948, the AHC the last attempt made to a place at the table in the development of the Self-Governing Institutions. Their response was:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION” ​

The defiance exhibited by the Arab Palestinians --- the all or nothing attitude --- is the same attitude maintained throughout the Mandate Period, and deep into the conflict with a remolding of the position: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations."


Most Respectfully,
R

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION

Would the US accept hacking off everything west of the Mississippi and giving it to someone else? Of course not.

Very stupid argument.

lol How can the Palestinians agree to give up land since they have none?

 

[rylah]

What sickos call their children "holy Jihad"??


Ah I forgot... the ones who put on them suicide vests.

So the savages stopped strapping suicide vests on their children?
That sure grants the 'Parent of the Year' award!

Lets face it, your Jihadi lowlifes - are the filth of the earth.

Gazans march demanding Caliphate

 

[toomuchtime_]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are twisting words here.

Are you saying that Palestinian territory was up for grabs. The ones with the guns get the territory?
How does this jive with the prohibition of acquiring territory by force?

(COMMENT)

In 1948, there was no "acquiring territory by force" in regards to the original partitions. The Arab Palestinians were the First Cause that brings us to the condition set for today.

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers. The War with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic brought to closure and the Treaty of Lausanne. And as part of that Treaty, it stipulated that (excerpt) "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab Palestinians were not a "party" to the Treaty.

The Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention wrote the backbone of the Mandate for Palestine.

The territory was not "up for grabs." It was that the leadership of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the Chairman (Mohammed Amin al-Husseini) of the committee and former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer. And take notice that the Message of Independence sent by the All Palestine Government (See Posting #14039) was signed by a former General of the Ottoman Army (Ahmed Hilmi Pasha). They were NOT parties to the conflict and they were NOT promised anything. However, even as early as 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. In January 1948, the AHC the last attempt made to a place at the table in the development of the Self-Governing Institutions. Their response was:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION” ​

The defiance exhibited by the Arab Palestinians --- the all or nothing attitude --- is the same attitude maintained throughout the Mandate Period, and deep into the conflict with a remolding of the position: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations."


Most Respectfully,
R

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION

Would the US accept hacking off everything west of the Mississippi and giving it to someone else? Of course not.

Very stupid argument.

lol How can the Palestinians agree to give up land since they have none?

lol To what? Clearly the Palestinians have no land and have never ha political control over any land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Finding success outside the box of Gaza- See more at: Finding success outside the box of Gaza

 

[rylah]

Hamas sentenced a comedian from Rafah to 1.5 years in prison for mocking the organization

Gaza military court issued the sentence over the weekend after comedian Adel Al-Mashuhi was charged with hurting religious sentiments and disgraceful behavior.

The problem for Hamas is the "mocking"...
Not the throwing of opposition from the rooftops, and of course not the public execution of gays in the main square.

 

[rylah]

 

[toastman]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are twisting words here.

Are you saying that Palestinian territory was up for grabs. The ones with the guns get the territory?
How does this jive with the prohibition of acquiring territory by force?

(COMMENT)

In 1948, there was no "acquiring territory by force" in regards to the original partitions. The Arab Palestinians were the First Cause that brings us to the condition set for today.

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers. The War with the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic brought to closure and the Treaty of Lausanne. And as part of that Treaty, it stipulated that (excerpt) "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." The Arab Palestinians were not a "party" to the Treaty.

The Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention wrote the backbone of the Mandate for Palestine.

The territory was not "up for grabs." It was that the leadership of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the Chairman (Mohammed Amin al-Husseini) of the committee and former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, al-Husseini received a commission in the Ottoman Army as an artillery officer. And take notice that the Message of Independence sent by the All Palestine Government (See Posting #14039) was signed by a former General of the Ottoman Army (Ahmed Hilmi Pasha). They were NOT parties to the conflict and they were NOT promised anything. However, even as early as 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. In January 1948, the AHC the last attempt made to a place at the table in the development of the Self-Governing Institutions. Their response was:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION” ​

The defiance exhibited by the Arab Palestinians --- the all or nothing attitude --- is the same attitude maintained throughout the Mandate Period, and deep into the conflict with a remolding of the position: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations."


Most Respectfully,
R

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION

Would the US accept hacking off everything west of the Mississippi and giving it to someone else? Of course not.

Very stupid argument.

lol How can the Palestinians agree to give up land since they have none?

We provided you with a link that proves Israel's borders. But you ignored them as usual. Why are you asking for a link now when you're just going to ignore it anyway.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Why are you showing us this witch?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]