'Palestinian'

[Hollie]

You have heard all that crap before and you choose to ignore history. The creation of Israel was the fulfillment of the Mandate.

Your insensate anger is a reflection of Islamist ideology: revulsion for Jews and the ability of the Jewish people to define their future via self-determination.

It is Arab incompetence and their inability form a functioning government that causes you such angst.

The government of Israel was created by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization against he wishes of the vast majority of the people. Of the 37 people who signed the declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of settlers. They were all foreign colonial settlers.

Israel is a foreign colonial power occupying Palestine. It is still rejected by a vast majority of the people.

Tissue?


Give us your best cut and paste diatribe on the muhammedan colonists who invaded your invented "country of Pal'istan.

Obviously, you believe Arab-Islamist invaders / colonists have an entitlement.

For hundreds of years there was no settler colonialism. During that time nobody made any claim to regain their lost land.

It looks like you are promoting a hoax.

The hoax is yours. The history of your Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land is one of Turkish Islamist and Arab-Islamist invasion and colonialism. For hundreds of years, there certainly was settler colonialism and it was Arab-Islamist.

I can attribute your refusal to acccept that not merely as ignorance; it has been explained to you in excruciating detail, but also as strident and willful denial on your part to accept reality.

So, how many people attempted to reclaim their land in the last few hundred years?

My understanding it that it is none.

The Arab-Islamist invades / colonizers have not attempted to reclaim the land the land they are still occupying.

 

[Hollie]

Of course you won't look it up. The one thing that is consistent about Zionists is that they refuse to learn anything. It shows in their posts.

Hilarious from the guy who keeps saying "Israel has no land", despite mountains of evidence against that claim.

Funny, show me one piece of evidence that Israel legally acquired any land.

Not to worry; Israel, including its occupation of Palestinian Territories, is on borrowed time.

Why do you say that?

What I mean is that the democracies such as the European Union will shun or boycott Israel when its true apartheid nature is understood.

When the USA was the leading democracy, other advanced countries were in its orbit. Because the Israel Lobby is so strong in the United States, I believe European democracies and Australia were led into the trap of treating Israel as a free and democratic state, one like the rest of us. Political cover was provided for Israel by the USA and the Europeans did not kick up a fuss when the Palestinian civilians were being massacred in Gaza or Jewish settlements continued to steal Palestinian land in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The USA will never go against its Jewish protegé but sometime (I do not know when) the other democracies which people call the "West" nowadays, will act independently and quit looking to America for permission to hold contrary policies. With the election of Donald Trump, this development will be sped up. Freed from America, the Free World will not be afraid to face up to the apartheid nature of Zionism and its creation, the Jewish State of Israel (including Judea and Sumeria as well as Gaza). Moral support for the Israeli Occupation of Palestine, the massacres of the people in Gaza and the restriction of Muslims to reservations in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, will be replaced by a resolve to cut all ties with the Jewish state and leave it to the USA alone to back it up. I am positive the Americans feel capable enough to do that.

But this idea of Apartheid Israel as a Jewish satellite of the USA is not sustainable in the long run. The Americans will eventually come to their senses. In any event, the rest of us will stop the pretense that Israel is a normal country and that will be that.

I'm guessing you're hoping to suggest that Islamist theocratic totalitarianism represents a "normal country".

 

[Challenger]

Indeed, it did not belong to the Mandate. They had no authority to give it away.

They had every right to divide the old Ottoman territory into new States. That's how ALL the States in the area were formed.

...except Zionist Israel

 

[Challenger]

Not to worry; Israel, including its occupation of Palestinian Territories, is on borrowed time.

Eloy, you have said this, and many things like it before. I am going to take you at face value and see you as an existential threat.

This is what the Jewish people are fighting against -- a threat to our existence.

Jewish people are doing just fine in the USA, the UK, France and many other countries and they're not fighting for their existance, the only people having problems are the racist Zionist settler colonists in their Zionist paradise. That's what's on borrowed time, depite all the Hasbara asttempts to conflate Judaism with Zionism.

 

[Challenger]

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move by the Zionists. It had nothing to do with the Mandate or the UN.

Oh, give me a break.

Jewish National Home/Jewish State. You know full well those words are included in both Mandate and UN documents. What was it, magic? Some sort of Jewish power which gives us the ability to put words in legal documents unilaterally, without the author's and signatories knowledge? Bamn! Abracadabra, after everything was drafted, read, signed and ratified, suddenly those words appeared? Are you auditioning to help write J.K. Rowling's new book?

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

 

[Shusha]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

 

[rylah]

Flopped how? Um. You ARE aware that Israel is actually a State, right? In every possible sense of the word.

Let's go back to this:

"Jewish National Homeland". The Jewish people acquired the right to re-constitute their national homeland in the territory of Mandate Palestine. They were one of the peoples in the Mandate territory and as such as a legal right to hold sovereignty. Indeed, they were the only peoples to acquire rights in that specific territory. Further, they realized that right, as required by the Mandate, by developing the ability to stand alone, create a government. And further, that right was recognized by the international community by acceptance into the UN and enter into diplomatic relations with other sovereign nations.

historical indigenous right + realization + recognition. Done deal. Get on with it.

Yeah, I have heard all of that crap before.
The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legitimacy from anyone.

You have heard all that crap before and you choose to ignore history. The creation of Israel was the fulfillment of the Mandate.

Your insensate anger is a reflection of Islamist ideology: revulsion for Jews and the ability of the Jewish people to define their future via self-determination.

It is Arab incompetence and their inability form a functioning government that causes you such angst.

The government of Israel was created by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization against he wishes of the vast majority of the people. Of the 37 people who signed the declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of settlers. They were all foreign colonial settlers.

Israel is a foreign colonial power occupying Palestine. It is still rejected by a vast majority of the people.

Your 'foreign' card doesn't work. Everything 'Palestinian' is foreign to the land, it's Arab Muslim colonialism, Palestinians are still ruled by foreign Arabian royalty.

Everything about the term 'Palestinian' is synonymous with the continuation of colonialism, Arab or European whatever.
National Home for Jews is the antidote. And a good example for the many indigenous minorities living under Arab Muslim rule.

You wouldn't have links to all that crap?

I didn't think so.

Palestinian = Kingdom of Syria

"1 . We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds. "

"3. In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection. "
First Palestinian Arab Congress

Who was the king of Syria and Iraq?

Faisal I bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashimi, (Arabic: فيصل بن الحسين بن علي الهاشمي‎‎, Fayṣal al-Awwal ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī al-Hāshimī; 20 May 1885[1][2][5] – 8 September 1933) was King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria or Greater Syria in 1920, and was King of Iraq from 23 August 1921 to 1933. He was a member of the Hashemite dynasty.

Who rules the eastern part of Palestine?

Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein (Arabic: عبد الله الثاني بن الحسين‎‎, ʿAbdullāh aṯ-ṯānī ibn Al-Ḥusayn, born 30 January 1962) has been king of Jordan since the 1999 death of his father, King Hussein. According to Abdullah, he is a 41st-generation direct descendant of Muhammad as he belongs to the Hashemite family—who have ruled Jordan since 1921.

Who is the most famous Palestinian leader, also a Hashemite?

Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa(/ˈærəˌfæt, ˈɑːrəˌfɑːt/;[2] Arabic: محمد ياسر عبد الرحمن عبد الرؤوف عرفات‎‎‎; 24 August 1929 – 11 November 2004), popularly known as Yasser Arafat(Arabic: ياسر عرفات‎‎ , Yāsir `Arafāt) or by his kunya Abu Ammar (Arabic: أبو عمار‎‎ , 'Abū `Ammār), was a Palestinian political leader.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of Palestinian key figures are of Arabian royalty.




OR did You need a link to show that Jews too have rights?

 

[Eloy]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Your post is sprawling all over the place and lacks concise meaning. It is impossible to make sense of it. Sorry.

 

[montelatici]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Bullshit. In 1922 the Colonial Office made this statement to calm the fears of the native people.



"The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine [Sir Herbert Samuel] the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached............statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Yeah, I have heard all of that crap before.
The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legitimacy from anyone.

You have heard all that crap before and you choose to ignore history. The creation of Israel was the fulfillment of the Mandate.

Your insensate anger is a reflection of Islamist ideology: revulsion for Jews and the ability of the Jewish people to define their future via self-determination.

It is Arab incompetence and their inability form a functioning government that causes you such angst.

The government of Israel was created by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization against he wishes of the vast majority of the people. Of the 37 people who signed the declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of settlers. They were all foreign colonial settlers.

Israel is a foreign colonial power occupying Palestine. It is still rejected by a vast majority of the people.

Your 'foreign' card doesn't work. Everything 'Palestinian' is foreign to the land, it's Arab Muslim colonialism, Palestinians are still ruled by foreign Arabian royalty.

Everything about the term 'Palestinian' is synonymous with the continuation of colonialism, Arab or European whatever.
National Home for Jews is the antidote. And a good example for the many indigenous minorities living under Arab Muslim rule.

You wouldn't have links to all that crap?

I didn't think so.

Palestinian = Kingdom of Syria

"1 . We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds. "

"3. In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection. "
First Palestinian Arab Congress

Who was the king of Syria and Iraq?

Faisal I bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashimi, (Arabic: فيصل بن الحسين بن علي الهاشمي‎‎, Fayṣal al-Awwal ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī al-Hāshimī; 20 May 1885[1][2][5] – 8 September 1933) was King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria or Greater Syria in 1920, and was King of Iraq from 23 August 1921 to 1933. He was a member of the Hashemite dynasty.

Who rules the eastern part of Palestine?

Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein (Arabic: عبد الله الثاني بن الحسين‎‎, ʿAbdullāh aṯ-ṯānī ibn Al-Ḥusayn, born 30 January 1962) has been king of Jordan since the 1999 death of his father, King Hussein. According to Abdullah, he is a 41st-generation direct descendant of Muhammad as he belongs to the Hashemite family—who have ruled Jordan since 1921.

Who is the most famous Palestinian leader, also a Hashemite?

Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa(/ˈærəˌfæt, ˈɑːrəˌfɑːt/;[2] Arabic: محمد ياسر عبد الرحمن عبد الرؤوف عرفات‎‎‎; 24 August 1929 – 11 November 2004), popularly known as Yasser Arafat(Arabic: ياسر عرفات‎‎ , Yāsir `Arafāt) or by his kunya Abu Ammar (Arabic: أبو عمار‎‎ , 'Abū `Ammār), was a Palestinian political leader.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of Palestinian key figures are of Arabian royalty.




OR did You need a link to show that Jews too have rights?

And don't forget that the "George Washington" of the Palestinians, Arafart, was actually born in Egypt.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Bullshit. In 1922 the Colonial Office made this statement to calm the fears of the native people.



"The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine [Sir Herbert Samuel] the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached............statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

The "Arabic population, language, or culture" is in no danger of "disappearance." They have 22 countries.

 

[Eloy]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Bullshit. In 1922 the Colonial Office made this statement to calm the fears of the native people.



"The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine [Sir Herbert Samuel] the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached............statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

The "Arabic population, language, or culture" is in no danger of "disappearance." They have 22 countries.

"Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

 

[ForeverYoung436]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Bullshit. In 1922 the Colonial Office made this statement to calm the fears of the native people.



"The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine [Sir Herbert Samuel] the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached............statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

The "Arabic population, language, or culture" is in no danger of "disappearance." They have 22 countries.

"Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

How many countries do the Arabs need? Too greedy.

 

[Eloy]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Bullshit. In 1922 the Colonial Office made this statement to calm the fears of the native people.



"The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine [Sir Herbert Samuel] the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached............statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

The "Arabic population, language, or culture" is in no danger of "disappearance." They have 22 countries.

"Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

How many countries do the Arabs need? Too greedy.

Europeans have more countries than Arabs and so do Latin Americans. It is a feature of demographics, not greed.

 

[montelatici]

Yeah, I have heard all of that crap before.
The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legitimacy from anyone.

You have heard all that crap before and you choose to ignore history. The creation of Israel was the fulfillment of the Mandate.

Your insensate anger is a reflection of Islamist ideology: revulsion for Jews and the ability of the Jewish people to define their future via self-determination.

It is Arab incompetence and their inability form a functioning government that causes you such angst.

The government of Israel was created by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization against he wishes of the vast majority of the people. Of the 37 people who signed the declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of settlers. They were all foreign colonial settlers.

Israel is a foreign colonial power occupying Palestine. It is still rejected by a vast majority of the people.

Your 'foreign' card doesn't work. Everything 'Palestinian' is foreign to the land, it's Arab Muslim colonialism, Palestinians are still ruled by foreign Arabian royalty.

Everything about the term 'Palestinian' is synonymous with the continuation of colonialism, Arab or European whatever.
National Home for Jews is the antidote. And a good example for the many indigenous minorities living under Arab Muslim rule.

You wouldn't have links to all that crap?

I didn't think so.

Palestinian = Kingdom of Syria

"1 . We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds. "

"3. In view of the above we desire that one district Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and to be free from all foreign influence and protection. "
First Palestinian Arab Congress

Who was the king of Syria and Iraq?

Faisal I bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashimi, (Arabic: فيصل بن الحسين بن علي الهاشمي‎‎, Fayṣal al-Awwal ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī al-Hāshimī; 20 May 1885[1][2][5] – 8 September 1933) was King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria or Greater Syria in 1920, and was King of Iraq from 23 August 1921 to 1933. He was a member of the Hashemite dynasty.

Who rules the eastern part of Palestine?

Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein (Arabic: عبد الله الثاني بن الحسين‎‎, ʿAbdullāh aṯ-ṯānī ibn Al-Ḥusayn, born 30 January 1962) has been king of Jordan since the 1999 death of his father, King Hussein. According to Abdullah, he is a 41st-generation direct descendant of Muhammad as he belongs to the Hashemite family—who have ruled Jordan since 1921.

Who is the most famous Palestinian leader, also a Hashemite?

Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa(/ˈærəˌfæt, ˈɑːrəˌfɑːt/;[2] Arabic: محمد ياسر عبد الرحمن عبد الرؤوف عرفات‎‎‎; 24 August 1929 – 11 November 2004), popularly known as Yasser Arafat(Arabic: ياسر عرفات‎‎ , Yāsir `Arafāt) or by his kunya Abu Ammar (Arabic: أبو عمار‎‎ , 'Abū `Ammār), was a Palestinian political leader.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of Palestinian key figures are of Arabian royalty.




OR did You need a link to show that Jews too have rights?

You need a history lesson. The Arab Kingdom of Syria never included Palestine. It included Trans-Jordania where the royal family of the Arab Kingdom of Syria fled to after the French occupied Damascus.

There is no "Arab royalty" associated with Arafat you idiot. Arafat's father was a poor Palestinian who immigrated to Egypt but was unsuccessful and returned to Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Bullshit. In 1922 the Colonial Office made this statement to calm the fears of the native people.



"The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine [Sir Herbert Samuel] the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached............statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

The "Arabic population, language, or culture" is in no danger of "disappearance." They have 22 countries.

"Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine."

How many countries do the Arabs need? Too greedy.

Europeans have more countries than Arabs and so do Latin Americans. It is a feature of demographics, not greed.

Pretty clueless. Your attempt at comparison fails due to the very demographics you don't understand. Europeans are not a virtually monolithic culture of forced religion under theocratic totalitarianism that so often defines your Islamic paradises.

Religion as practiced in Western cultures is largely a personal and private matter. Religion is not forced by government Mandate and it is not dragged into the public arena. In Western style democracy, you can believe (or not) as you wish without fear of Islamic goon squads threatening you with death or conversion to Islamism and you can expect that belief to be honored (even if grudgingly) and protected by law.

I do wish people like you would spend some time in your fascist Islamic paradises to learn of the benefits of western society as opposed to the horrors of third world Islamist backwaters.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Britain's stupid plan flopped, so...

That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

They proposed partition. (two state solution) And that stupid plan flopped too.

Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable.

Britain left Palestine accomplishing nothing.

 

[Hollie]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Britain's stupid plan flopped, so...

That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

They proposed partition. (two state solution) And that stupid plan flopped too.

Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable.

Britain left Palestine accomplishing nothing.

Nothing except their "Mandate": to reestablish the Jewish National Home.

Still holding a grudge, obviously. The Zionistas'™ managed to defend that home in spite of attacking Islamist armies and attacks by your Islamist terrorist heroes.

How does it feel to be flailing your Pom Poms for Arab-islamist failure, ineptitude and incompetence?

 

[P F Tinmore]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Britain's stupid plan flopped, so...

That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

They proposed partition. (two state solution) And that stupid plan flopped too.

Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable.

Britain left Palestine accomplishing nothing.

Nothing except their "Mandate": to reestablish the Jewish National Home.

Still holding a grudge, obviously. The Zionistas'™ managed to defend that home in spite of attacking Islamist armies and attacks by your Islamist terrorist heroes.

How does it feel to be flailing your Pom Poms for Arab-islamist failure, ineptitude and incompetence?

The Mandate flopped and had nothing to do with the creation of Israel. Israel was created by foreigners in Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

A "national home" in Palestine, is not the same thing as a "Jewish state" in Palestine; that was never the intention of the LoN or the UN; that was pure Zionist settler colonialism.

Oh sure, so when everyone was talking about a Jewish National Home between 1917 and 1949, and all those legal documents were being created, they envisioned an Arab Palestinian State, under Arab sovereignty, with solely Arab self-determination in which it was permissible for Jews to simply reside.

That's why terminology like THIS was used:

Jewish State
Government of each State
reconstituting their national home
Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising ... in economic, social and other matters
(Jewish agency) shall take steps (toward) the establishment of the Jewish national home
Jewish agency ... to construct or operate any public works, services, utilities and to develop any natural resources in the county

(And please also note the ABSENCE of this kind of language with respect to the Arab population in some of these documents)


That's why speeches like this were made in the US Congress:

I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration....

If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one.


That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine.

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.


And finally, we have this little gem written by the UN:

The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.





Your claim that there was never an intent to create an independent, self-governing, self-determining Jewish State as a homeland for the Jewish people in the territory by right of their historical connection is blatantly disingenuous.

Britain's stupid plan flopped, so...

That's why the White Paper of 1939 was forced to attempt to devise an alternative policy:

They proposed partition. (two state solution) And that stupid plan flopped too.

Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable.

Britain left Palestine accomplishing nothing.

Nothing except their "Mandate": to reestablish the Jewish National Home.

Still holding a grudge, obviously. The Zionistas'™ managed to defend that home in spite of attacking Islamist armies and attacks by your Islamist terrorist heroes.

How does it feel to be flailing your Pom Poms for Arab-islamist failure, ineptitude and incompetence?

The Mandate flopped and had nothing to do with the creation of Israel. Israel was created by foreigners in Palestine.

One of the goals of the Mandate was to re establish the Jewish National Home.

Success.



Have you considered that your Magical Kingdom of Disney Islam'istan, was created by foreignen Turks, Arabs and European Christian Crusaders?

Failure.