Palestinians Reject Two State Solution

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

This image of the Arab is still with use today. Whether we picture them settling bombs off in restaurants, suicide bombers on a crowed beach, kidnapping and murdering teenagers, or sending a laser-guided missile into the side of a school bus, the image that the name of the Arab Palestinians invokes is one of sheer barbarism.

Not in so many words, but when Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Transjordan they withdrew their forces leaving a few advisors behind.

When Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Palestine they kept their military force.

Why the difference?

(COMMENT)

On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. Border transgressions by the Ikhwan (Arab nomadic tribesmen which made up the first Saudi Army) necessitated the British Army to keep an installation, with RAF Air Support, near the Capital of Amman.

The British maintained a military presence in Jordan all through the term of the Mandate; and even after the 1946 Independence. Granted, they were in a more reduced form, and that is because the Trans-Jordan was, through cooperation and education (Tutelage) better able to stand alone.

The Arab Palestinians, West of the Jordan River, were uncooperative and declined or rejected every overture made to them, because it was exclusive to them.

Most Respectfully,
R

This hate-filled racist crap you spout is getting annoying. Like killing thousands of women and children like the Israelis do every two years ago or so isn't barbarism you jerk off. Or Churchill gassing the Arabs in Iraq. You are disgusting.

Your inarticulate rants are so tedious. I wasn't aware that the Israelis killed thousands of women and children 'every two years ago". Is there any chance you could compose a coherent sentence?

You seem to be, by way of what we call a "Monty'ism, referring to the beatdown that was issued to the Arab-Moslems in 2014.

The Israeli thrusts into Gaza were propelled entirely by a need and willingness on the part of the Israelis to halt the rocket attacks by the islamic terrorists. Those repeated attacks were a casus belli to respond. Any Pal'istainian who chose to fight by force of arms automatically become a legitimate target. You won't accept that Israel exercised restraint during that little dalliance as you also don't understand the mayhem that Israel could have unleashed. Had the IDF chosen to fight a war to its conclusion, neither HAMAS nor any credible notions about Pal'istanian autonomy would have existed. Unfortunately, Israel chose to allow the Islamic terrorist franchises yet another "do-over".

Every day that the islamic terrorists attacked Israel with rocket fire was a day for the Israeli Defense Forces to drive further into Gaza, demolishing the war-making ability of the islamic terrorists and generally informing the islamic terrorists that they had crossed a line they were unwise to cross. The fact that islamic terrorists waged war from civilian areas and intentionally caused civilian deaths is a pattern of behavior that is typical of islamic terrorists.

An action is deemed major if it has major consequences. It's deemed a mistake if those consequences are negative. Judge for yourself.

 

[Phoenall]

Yet they did not arrive armed for war did they,

Yes they did. They mooched Britain's military.

Then produce the link to the British military that says this ?

Without it you are just a bare faced liar

Not in so many words, but when Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Transjordan they withdrew their forces leaving a few advisors behind.

When Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Palestine they kept their military force.

Why the difference?

Because palestine included trans Jordan and the British administration put the troops in a central location. The arab muslims threatened violence from 1917 which was also a deciding factor, and if you read the remit of the mandate you will see that they were tasked with keeping the mandate free of violence and terrorism.

BUT YOU DONT WANT TO READ THAT DO YOU AS IT SHOWS YOU CHOSE THE WRONG SIDE



Still waiting for the link or is it just another of your pipedreams

 

[Phoenall]

because the Trans-Jordan was, through cooperation and education (Tutelage) better able to stand alone.

What does that have to do with the military? Was Palestine under threat by any of its neighbors?

Yes and by its inhabitants, or cant you understand English

From the mandate



ART. 15.

The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.


ART. 17.

The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

This image of the Arab is still with use today. Whether we picture them settling bombs off in restaurants, suicide bombers on a crowed beach, kidnapping and murdering teenagers, or sending a laser-guided missile into the side of a school bus, the image that the name of the Arab Palestinians invokes is one of sheer barbarism.

Not in so many words, but when Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Transjordan they withdrew their forces leaving a few advisors behind.

When Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Palestine they kept their military force.

Why the difference?

(COMMENT)

On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. Border transgressions by the Ikhwan (Arab nomadic tribesmen which made up the first Saudi Army) necessitated the British Army to keep an installation, with RAF Air Support, near the Capital of Amman.

The British maintained a military presence in Jordan all through the term of the Mandate; and even after the 1946 Independence. Granted, they were in a more reduced form, and that is because the Trans-Jordan was, through cooperation and education (Tutelage) better able to stand alone.

The Arab Palestinians, West of the Jordan River, were uncooperative and declined or rejected every overture made to them, because it was exclusive to them.

Most Respectfully,
R

This hate-filled racist crap you spout is getting annoying. Like killing thousands of women and children like the Israelis do every two years ago or so isn't barbarism you jerk off. Or Churchill gassing the Arabs in Iraq. You are disgusting.

Who is it that puts the women and children in the line of fire, to protect their illegal weapons and terrorist fighters, those are the ones to blame for the deaths. Every time you are shown to be promoting islamonazi terrorism and violence you resort to name calling and islamonazi propaganda

 

[Phoenall]

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

Link?

Try the one monte uses that shows the arab muslims threatening violence, the hamas charter and the palestinian charter

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

This image of the Arab is still with use today. Whether we picture them settling bombs off in restaurants, suicide bombers on a crowed beach, kidnapping and murdering teenagers, or sending a laser-guided missile into the side of a school bus, the image that the name of the Arab Palestinians invokes is one of sheer barbarism.

Not in so many words, but when Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Transjordan they withdrew their forces leaving a few advisors behind.

When Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Palestine they kept their military force.

Why the difference?

(COMMENT)

On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. Border transgressions by the Ikhwan (Arab nomadic tribesmen which made up the first Saudi Army) necessitated the British Army to keep an installation, with RAF Air Support, near the Capital of Amman.

The British maintained a military presence in Jordan all through the term of the Mandate; and even after the 1946 Independence. Granted, they were in a more reduced form, and that is because the Trans-Jordan was, through cooperation and education (Tutelage) better able to stand alone.

The Arab Palestinians, West of the Jordan River, were uncooperative and declined or rejected every overture made to them, because it was exclusive to them.

Most Respectfully,
R

This hate-filled racist crap you spout is getting annoying. Like killing thousands of women and children like the Israelis do every two years ago or so isn't barbarism you jerk off. Or Churchill gassing the Arabs in Iraq. You are disgusting.

Your inarticulate rants are so tedious. I wasn't aware that the Israelis killed thousands of women and children 'every two years ago". Is there any chance you could compose a coherent sentence?

You seem to be, by way of what we call a "Monty'ism, referring to the beatdown that was issued to the Arab-Moslems in 2014.

The Israeli thrusts into Gaza were propelled entirely by a need and willingness on the part of the Israelis to halt the rocket attacks by the islamic terrorists. Those repeated attacks were a casus belli to respond. Any Pal'istainian who chose to fight by force of arms automatically become a legitimate target. You won't accept that Israel exercised restraint during that little dalliance as you also don't understand the mayhem that Israel could have unleashed. Had the IDF chosen to fight a war to its conclusion, neither HAMAS nor any credible notions about Pal'istanian autonomy would have existed. Unfortunately, Israel chose to allow the Islamic terrorist franchises yet another "do-over".

Every day that the islamic terrorists attacked Israel with rocket fire was a day for the Israeli Defense Forces to drive further into Gaza, demolishing the war-making ability of the islamic terrorists and generally informing the islamic terrorists that they had crossed a line they were unwise to cross. The fact that islamic terrorists waged war from civilian areas and intentionally caused civilian deaths is a pattern of behavior that is typical of islamic terrorists.

An action is deemed major if it has major consequences. It's deemed a mistake if those consequences are negative. Judge for yourself.

Regretfully, Palestinians do not understand the first law of the hole. If you're already in one --- Stop digging!

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

This surprises me a little. Racism and the real perceptions are entirely two different thing.

This is one of those allegations and charges that makes people want to shrink into the shadows. In modern times, most educated people don't want to be attached with the stigma of racism; like your argument which attacks me, as opposed to addressing the content of my observation. Suggesting that I made some distinction against the Arab Palestinian that was based on the belief that my race (whatever that may be) is somehow superior to the Arab Palestinian --- is just --- unjustified. But you can make any allegation you wish.

​

I am unafraid to state my opinion and observations; and can face this allegation directly.

This hate-filled racist crap you spout is getting annoying. Like killing thousands of women and children like the Israelis do every two years ago or so isn't barbarism you jerk off. Or Churchill gassing the Arabs in Iraq. You are disgusting.

(COMMENT)

I do not think I used race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, or age as a means to perceive the nature of the Arab Palestinian as barbaric and savage.

{More to the Point Observations}

Valentino's Ghost: Framing the Arab Image
We explore how US foreign policy in the Middle East is driving the media's negative portrayals of Arabs and Muslims.
Aljazeera 23 Aug 2015 16:57 GMT Media, Middle East, Islam, Racism

The Two Schools of Thought on Arab Violence Against Israel
The Algemeiner: AUGUST 3, 2016 by Steve Plaut

Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy by Christison, Kathleen. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1999 1999. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt5t1nc6tp/
​

Whether you talk about the 1968 bombing at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the thousands of rocket and mortar launched, or the more than 50 attacks against Palestinians in just 2016, we are not talking about the magnitude of the anti-Israeli activity; not racism. It is a matter of fact.

European eyes all Arabs became indolent, obstinate, sensual—"wild, cruel, savages or robbers, in greater or lesser degree."
Page 19:
​

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

Link?

(COMMENT)

For the "LINKS" please see the first comment.

It is fairly clear to me that the Jewish National Home (JNH) is the only regional resource capable of protecting future generations of the Jewish Community; the JNH is striving for a hygge and possess a humanity that the Arab Palestinians do not demonstrate and are not capable of developing while devising was to kill more Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

because the Trans-Jordan was, through cooperation and education (Tutelage) better able to stand alone.

What does that have to do with the military? Was Palestine under threat by any of its neighbors?

Yes and by its inhabitants, or cant you understand English

From the mandate



ART. 15.

The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.


ART. 17.

The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.

Palestine was under threat of the Palestinians

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

Link?

Try the one monte uses that shows the arab muslims threatening violence, the hamas charter and the palestinian charter

We were talking about 70 years before Hamas.

You need to keep up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who is it that puts the women and children in the line of fire,

Israeli propaganda,

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not that this is untrue ---- meaning the statement is untrue, where did you get it???

Palestine was under threat of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Arab Palestinian Leadership is a purest of examples for suicidal behavior and national self-inflected injury (Slow Death by Armed Struggle). It bleeds the lifeblood of a nation away.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I do not think I used race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, or age as a means to perceive the nature of the Arab Palestinian as barbaric and savage.

You always portray the Palestinians as lesser people with no rights. That is the Zionists perception.

"A land without people for a people with a land." They knew there were people there but they did not raise to the level of humanity to warrant having any rights or to be considered as people. The Palestinians were just something in the way that could be shoved aside like a tree or rock. Superior people deserve this land.

That is the racist view that you share.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not that this is untrue statement is untrue, where did you git it???

Palestine was under threat of the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Arab Palestinian Leadership is a purest of examples for suicidal behavior and national self-inflected injury (Slow Death by Armed Struggle). It bleeds the lifeblood of a nation away.

Most Respectfully,
R

How does that relate to the beginning of Zionist colonization?

 

[Phoenall]

because the Trans-Jordan was, through cooperation and education (Tutelage) better able to stand alone.

What does that have to do with the military? Was Palestine under threat by any of its neighbors?

Yes and by its inhabitants, or cant you understand English

From the mandate



ART. 15.

The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.


ART. 17.

The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.

Palestine was under threat of the Palestinians

They still are if you look as hamas and fatah are for ever at war with each other.

But once again you show your inept disability to understand English and put your own spin on what is written.

Try reading what is written and not what you want to see written is the answer

 

[Hossfly]

I do not think I used race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, or age as a means to perceive the nature of the Arab Palestinian as barbaric and savage.

You always portray the Palestinians as lesser people with no rights. That is the Zionists perception.

"A land without people for a people with a land." They knew there were people there but they did not raise to the level of humanity to warrant having any rights or to be considered as people. The Palestinians were just something in the way that could be shoved aside like a tree or rock. Superior people deserve this land.

That is the racist view that you share.

Was there enough land for the Jews to live there too? Why aren't you there, Tinmore? You piss and moan 24 hours a day but I have never seen any of your solutions. Come up with something instead of your Paliganda videos.

 

[Phoenall]

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

Link?

Try the one monte uses that shows the arab muslims threatening violence, the hamas charter and the palestinian charter

We were talking about 70 years before Hamas.

You need to keep up.

No you are trying to change the goalposts because yo were shown to be a clown, I kept to the topic 100% and the link monte uses is from 1923 so is even on topic for your revised goalposts.

 

[Phoenall]

Who is it that puts the women and children in the line of fire,

Israeli propaganda,

So the many reports from 2014 that show them doing this, and the fact that the UN admitted they did it are all Israeli propaganda are they ?

Time to get real and look at the reality

About 2,000,000 other pictures from sites that are unbiased if you want the link ?

 

[Shusha]

Was Palestine under threat by any of its neighbors?

Of course she was. You are trying to justify States using military force outside their own sovereign lands to incorporate new territory into their own sovereignty. How many times have you told us that you can't use military force to gain territory?

 

[Shusha]

Was there enough land for the Jews to live there too?

Clearly. Since now more than 10 million people live there.

 

[Phoenall]

I do not think I used race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, or age as a means to perceive the nature of the Arab Palestinian as barbaric and savage.

You always portray the Palestinians as lesser people with no rights. That is the Zionists perception.

"A land without people for a people with a land." They knew there were people there but they did not raise to the level of humanity to warrant having any rights or to be considered as people. The Palestinians were just something in the way that could be shoved aside like a tree or rock. Superior people deserve this land.

That is the racist view that you share.

And you always use this LIE as this is the islamonazi means to silence the truth. At no time has anyone deprived the so called palestinians of their rights apart from themselves and the other arab muslims. You try and use rights retroactively when you know that they did not exist at the time, which is what you see as the so called palestinians having their rights deprived or taken away.

THIS IS WHY YOU ARE ASKED TO SHOW THESE RIGHTS AND THE LAWS THAT ENACTED THEM