Palestinians Reject Two State Solution

[Phoenall]

MJ is not he sharpest knife in the drawer, he has posted that there are Muslim Archbishops. He probably never read the article himself.

LINK, and it must say those exact words.....................

 

[Phoenall]

The Arabs who started calling themselves "Palestinian" a few decades back for political purposes have never wanted a separate state. They could have had one at just about any point in time over the last 70 years if A -- they were an actual, distinct people and B -- actually wanted a state.

The Palestinians were Palestinians when the Zionists called the area Palestine at the first Zionist Conference in Basel at least in the late 1800s.

The Palestinians sought independence as a people and declared such in correspondence with the British Colonial Office in 1921-1922. You are ignorant of the facts.

"PALESTINE.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB
DELEGATION AND THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION.



No. 1.
The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.





​

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Sir,
We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine......Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

So, you think your posting of some article referring to them simply as Arabs as I stated somehow proves they identified as "Palestinian".

I realized you were stupid, Monte, but not THAT stupid.

They refer to themselves as the "People of Palestine" you moron.

But never as palestinians

 

[Phoenall]

What, the invasion of Palestine by Europeans and the expulsion and killing of the native inhabitants erased the history of the Jews?

So what about the invasion of palestine by Europeans that were Christians with no actual ties to the lands. You know the Roman Catholics that invaded and ethnically cleansed the Jews from palestine. Those are the Europeans that you are talking about, not the slaves they took back with them in the 4C who are returning to their roots.

 

[Hossfly]

montelatici, et al,

Let us start by remembering that the fundamental purposes of the UN as an organization is to maintain international peace and security. The UN tries to act in the furtherance of prevention and removal of threats to the peace. This is the very meaning behind Chapter I of the UN Charter with the intent to suppress acts of aggression and the outbreak of hostilities.

Cablegram from the Secretary-General (SG) of the League of Arab States (LAS) to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (1948)

On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed, I have the honour to request your Excellency to bring following statement before General Assembly and Security Council.​

.......The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. ​

Arab League Declaration on the intervention in Palestine, 15 May 1948 | Religion :: Science :: Peace

(COMMENT)

The first dynamic to International Diplomacy at the policy level is the concept for a "Just War." Technically, today, the FIRST USE of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter I Article 2(4) shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression.

The excerpt of the Cablegram (To SG - From LAS) is essentially a confession (prima facie evidence) to the act of FIRST USE. Technically, there were at least seven counts. Today, it would be Seven Counts in contravention of Chapter I/UN Charter --- and --- Seven Count in violation of Rome Statue - Article 8 bis Crime of aggression. However, in the 1948 invasion by LAS Armed Forces against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.

• The remarkable thing here is the fact that it must be a State(s) against State(s) - remembering that there was no State of Palestine at that time - AND - that it is an "invasion" OR "attack" against a sovereignty.
​

The "Just War" Defense given by the LAS is that:

• Jewish aggression was the proximate cause of Peace and order having been completely upset in Palestine.
• To prevent Jewish Forces from committing excessive (war crimes like) acts upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places.
• That the sovereignty and independence of the Jewish State was improperly establish and that only the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration.
​

The underlying opposition against the LAS justification for aggression rests with:

• Chapter I is interpreted to include the concept that no consideration of whatever may be granted to the LAS in the nature of the intervention; whether political, economic, military or otherwise. None may serve as a justification for aggression.
• Chapter VII provides for the Jewish State to initiate defensive actions with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression by the FIRST USE of armed force against Israeli declared sovereignty.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still shoveling Israeli shit.

Nobody attacked Israel.

Tinmore, when you and your assistant get a break from being on duty monitoring the forum for Hamas, I suggest you buy or rent the movie Cast a Giant Shadow. It is based on a true study.

Amazon.com: Cast a Giant Shadow: Kirk Douglas, John Wayne, Frank Sinatra, Senta Berger, Angie Dickinson, James Donald, Stathis Giallelis, Luther Adler, Haim Topol, Ruth White, Gordon Jackson, Michael Hordern, Aldo Tonti, Melville Shavelson, Michael Wayne, Ted Berkman: Movies & TV

Just like "Braveheart" or "The Patriot"

You are overlooking a very important point. While the movies you mentioned are historical fiction, Cast a Giant Shadow was based on current events. People were still alive (and many still are) who contributed to the validity of the script since they were among those who fought in the Israeli/Arab War.

 

[montelatici]

In 1925 most of the individuals involved in the mutiny of the Battleship Potemkin that took place in 1905, were still alive and had fought against the Imperial Navy. Doesn't mean the film was accurate. It was completely one-sided for the Communists. Just as "Cast the Shadow" glorifies the invasion of Palestine by Europeans and the defeat of the native non-Jews; making it appear that violent attacks on native non-Europeans by hostile invaders is just fine.

 

[RoccoR]

GLASNOST, Challenger, et al,

This timeframe is 1948. The UN was about 3 years old.

I have actually have mentioned it, but only in passing - as a matter of coercion and intimidate. It is a "bandwagon" effect by members which is a controversial issue.

BUT! You both are correct, in that a rarely mention it.

Rambling RoccoR seems to overlook there was no UN condemnation of the action by the neighboring states intervention to prevent the Zionists ethnically cleansing Palestine.

EXACTLY.

(COMMENT)

The General Assembly speaks out both sides of its mouth.

On the one-hand, I concede that the UN has passed some 100+ Resolutions against Israel in one form or another. That is a matter of record (See UN resolutions against Israel)(Dark Politrick). AND! Out of these 100+ Resolutions there are 40 ∑ that are either condemnations or demands.

I believe that these 100+ Resolution have attached stigma of "Crying Wolf." (Aesop's Fables) The UN publishes them as fast as the UN Palestine Mission / PLO Member write them. And what they have done is made so many that I don't read them any more. They all have the same theme, with the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) provoking an incident or event, the Israelis responding, and then they go parading the dead through the streets for the media exploitation (Huge Crocodile Tears) crying to the UN, Human Rights activities, all the NGO, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) --- with the mantra that they have had for the last century, whinning (in that high-pitched complaining cry that only the HoAP can muster) that the dirty rotten, thieving and conniving European Jew that mounted an armed invasion and took our land is trying to ethnically cleanse the region and take even more territory that has been theirs for thousands of years.

OK, I admit it. That I pay absolutely no attention to the whimpering howls and moans of the HoAP and the citizenry of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. All those resolutions have done is kill more trees and take more bandwidth. The HoAP and the Citizenry that support the Palestinian terrorist that follow Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, are NOT setting forth any conflict resolutions proposals. They are, in fact, advocating for more death and destruction; and acting up in a fashion that will require more security countermeasure.

OH, and yes, I do sometimes ramble.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

RoccoR , I agree, except with the rambling part. You always have a point to your posts.

 

[Shusha]

Palestine did not belong to Jews. It belonged to the native inhabitants, the Christians and Muslims that inhabited the land for thousands of years before the European invasion. Let's get that straight. This idea that a bunch of people in Europe claiming to be of a particular religion, had the right to expel or otherwise eliminate the inhabitants of a place because of some myth, is ridiculous.

Let's try this again....

You don't think "Palestine did not belong to the Jews" erases Jewish history??
You don't think "(the land) belonged to the native ... Christians and Muslims..." erases Jewish history?
You don't think "because of some myth" erases Jewish history?

And I have never argued that anyone has the right to expel or eliminate anyone else. Indeed, though, you seem to feel that the Palestinians have the right to destroy the existing State of Israel and expel or otherwise eliminate the current inhabitants.

 

[montelatici]

GLASNOST, Challenger, et al,

This timeframe is 1948. The UN was about 3 years old.

I have actually have mentioned it, but only in passing - as a matter of coercion and intimidate. It is a "bandwagon" effect by members which is a controversial issue.

BUT! You both are correct, in that a rarely mention it.

Rambling RoccoR seems to overlook there was no UN condemnation of the action by the neighboring states intervention to prevent the Zionists ethnically cleansing Palestine.

EXACTLY.

(COMMENT)

The General Assembly speaks out both sides of its mouth.

On the one-hand, I concede that the UN has passed some 100+ Resolutions against Israel in one form or another. That is a matter of record (See UN resolutions against Israel)(Dark Politrick). AND! Out of these 100+ Resolutions there are 40 ∑ that are either condemnations or demands.

I believe that these 100+ Resolution have attached stigma of "Crying Wolf." (Aesop's Fables) The UN publishes them as fast as the UN Palestine Mission / PLO Member write them. And what they have done is made so many that I don't read them any more. They all have the same theme, with the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) provoking an incident or event, the Israelis responding, and then they go parading the dead through the streets for the media exploitation (Huge Crocodile Tears) crying to the UN, Human Rights activities, all the NGO, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) --- with the mantra that they have had for the last century, whinning (in that high-pitched complaining cry that only the HoAP can muster) that the dirty rotten, thieving and conniving European Jew that mounted an armed invasion and took our land is trying to ethnically cleanse the region and take even more territory that has been theirs for thousands of years.

OK, I admit it. That I pay absolutely no attention to the whimpering howls and moans of the HoAP and the citizenry of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. All those resolutions have done is kill more trees and take more bandwidth. The HoAP and the Citizenry that support the Palestinian terrorist that follow Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, are NOT setting forth any conflict resolutions proposals. They are, in fact, advocating for more death and destruction; and acting up in a fashion that will require more security countermeasure.

OH, and yes, I do sometimes ramble.

Most Respectfully,
R

Correct, the conniving (connived with the British to have the Balfour Declaration issued) European Jews mounted an armed invasion and took most of the land that the ancestors of the native Middle Eastern Muslims and Christians had lived on for thousands of years. And are continuing grab up more and more of said land.

 

[montelatici]

Palestine did not belong to Jews. It belonged to the native inhabitants, the Christians and Muslims that inhabited the land for thousands of years before the European invasion. Let's get that straight. This idea that a bunch of people in Europe claiming to be of a particular religion, had the right to expel or otherwise eliminate the inhabitants of a place because of some myth, is ridiculous.

Let's try this again....

You don't think "Palestine did not belong to the Jews" erases Jewish history??
You don't think "(the land) belonged to the native ... Christians and Muslims..." erases Jewish history?
You don't think "because of some myth" erases Jewish history?

And I have never argued that anyone has the right to expel or eliminate anyone else. Indeed, though, you seem to feel that the Palestinians have the right to destroy the existing State of Israel and expel or otherwise eliminate the current inhabitants.

1. Correct, Palestine, did not belong to the Zionist. It belonged to the inhabitants, who happened to be Muslim and Christian at the time of the invasion. How could Palestine have belonged to Europeans?

2. Palestine belonged to the inhabitants who were overwhelmingly either Muslim or Christian at the start of the Zionist invasion. Who else could it have belonged to?

3. Of course it's a myth that Europeans that happen to have converted to Judaism had anything to do with Jewish history.

Apparently you believe that the invasion of Palestine by the Europeans was justified and that the conquered people have no right to resist their current second-class status. I am not promoting the expulsion of the Jewish inhabitants, the crime was committed and there is nothing that can be done about the current demographics. What should happen, now that a state for the Palestinian cannot be created practically a single state should be a secular state for all the people of Palestine, like any normal modern western state.

 

[Hossfly]

In 1925 most of the individuals involved in the mutiny of the Battleship Potemkin that took place in 1905, were still alive and had fought against the Imperial Navy. Doesn't mean the film was accurate. It was completely one-sided for the Communists. Just as "Cast the Shadow" glorifies the invasion of Palestine by Europeans and the defeat of the native non-Jews; making it appear that violent attacks on native non-Europeans by hostile invaders is just fine.

One of the amusing things on this forum is when you see a Jew hater parked here all day long like it was his second home and one who can't stand to see a film brought up that gives what happened to his Arab friends. All those who think this film is fictitious, why not send birthday greets to Kirk Douglas on his 100th birthday and ask him if he could tell you who was around to verify the accuracy of the script. He might remember their names and if they are still alive for you to contact them.

 

[Hollie]

Palestine did not belong to Jews. It belonged to the native inhabitants, the Christians and Muslims that inhabited the land for thousands of years before the European invasion. Let's get that straight. This idea that a bunch of people in Europe claiming to be of a particular religion, had the right to expel or otherwise eliminate the inhabitants of a place because of some myth, is ridiculous.

Let's try this again....

You don't think "Palestine did not belong to the Jews" erases Jewish history??
You don't think "(the land) belonged to the native ... Christians and Muslims..." erases Jewish history?
You don't think "because of some myth" erases Jewish history?

And I have never argued that anyone has the right to expel or eliminate anyone else. Indeed, though, you seem to feel that the Palestinians have the right to destroy the existing State of Israel and expel or otherwise eliminate the current inhabitants.

1. Correct, Palestine, did not belong to the Zionist. It belonged to the inhabitants, who happened to be Muslim and Christian at the time of the invasion. How could Palestine have belonged to Europeans?

2. Palestine belonged to the inhabitants who were overwhelmingly either Muslim or Christian at the start of the Zionist invasion. Who else could it have belonged to?

3. Of course it's a myth that Europeans that happen to have converted to Judaism had anything to do with Jewish history.

Other than for purposes of your usual propaganda, your Zionist Invasion™ slogan is as pointless with this most recent cut and paste as the previous instances. It's a shame you don't understand the terms and slogans you use.

 

[montelatici]

In 1925 most of the individuals involved in the mutiny of the Battleship Potemkin that took place in 1905, were still alive and had fought against the Imperial Navy. Doesn't mean the film was accurate. It was completely one-sided for the Communists. Just as "Cast the Shadow" glorifies the invasion of Palestine by Europeans and the defeat of the native non-Jews; making it appear that violent attacks on native non-Europeans by hostile invaders is just fine.

One of the amusing things on this forum is when you see a Jew hater parked here all day long like it was his second home and one who can't stand to see a film brought up that gives what happened to his Arab friends. All those who think this film is fictitious, why not send birthday greets to Kirk Douglas on his 100th birthday and ask him if he could tell you who was around to verify the accuracy of the script. He might remember their names and if they are still alive for you to contact them.

I am a Jew-hater because I question the veracity of Hollywood interpretations of historical events. LOL

 

[Shusha]

Palestine did not belong to Jews. It belonged to the native inhabitants, the Christians and Muslims that inhabited the land for thousands of years before the European invasion. Let's get that straight. This idea that a bunch of people in Europe claiming to be of a particular religion, had the right to expel or otherwise eliminate the inhabitants of a place because of some myth, is ridiculous.

Let's try this again....

You don't think "Palestine did not belong to the Jews" erases Jewish history??
You don't think "(the land) belonged to the native ... Christians and Muslims..." erases Jewish history?
You don't think "because of some myth" erases Jewish history?

1. Correct, Palestine, did not belong to the Zionist. It belonged to the inhabitants, who happened to be Muslim and Christian at the time of the invasion. How could Palestine have belonged to Europeans?

2. Palestine belonged to the inhabitants who were overwhelmingly either Muslim or Christian at the start of the Zionist invasion. Who else could it have belonged to?

3. Of course it's a myth that Europeans that happen to have converted to Judaism had anything to do with Jewish history.

You didn't answer my questions. I am asking if you think your beliefs erase Jewish history.

Your answer above seems to be either:

1. It does erase Jewish history, but its justified (its okay to erase Jewish history) OR
2. There is no Jewish history to erase.

 

[Shusha]

Apparently you believe that the invasion of Palestine by the Europeans was justified and that the conquered people have no right to resist their current second-class status. I am not promoting the expulsion of the Jewish inhabitants, the crime was committed and there is nothing that can be done about the current demographics. What should happen, now that a state for the Palestinian cannot be created practically a single state should be a secular state for all the people of Palestine, like any normal modern western state.

Well, I believe that migration to ancestral homelands is justified and not especially harmful in most cases, including this one had it been met with Feisal's attitude of a hearty welcome home. I believe in the right of an invaded and conquered peoples to resist their occupation by foreigners -- and it is self-evident that the Jewish people are the invaded and conquered peoples. I am also not promoting the expulsion of anyone (including the Jewish "settlers" which I am pretty sure you do support expelling.) IF a crime of expulsion has been committed, it has been committed by (and only by) the Muslim ME nations which expelled their Jewish populations. And I agree the current demographics are an egg that can't be unbroken (and needn't be).

It seems unlikely that a single State is a practical solution given the current animosity between the two parties. Why not two States?

 

[montelatici]

Was Jewish history "erased" before the Zionists invaded Palestine? I don't get your point. Was it necessary to expel the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine from their land and home to prevent the erasure of Jewish history?

 

[montelatici]

Apparently you believe that the invasion of Palestine by the Europeans was justified and that the conquered people have no right to resist their current second-class status. I am not promoting the expulsion of the Jewish inhabitants, the crime was committed and there is nothing that can be done about the current demographics. What should happen, now that a state for the Palestinian cannot be created practically a single state should be a secular state for all the people of Palestine, like any normal modern western state.

Well, I believe that migration to ancestral homelands is justified and not especially harmful in most cases, including this one had it been met with Feisal's attitude of a hearty welcome home. I believe in the right of an invaded and conquered peoples to resist their occupation by foreigners -- and it is self-evident that the Jewish people are the invaded and conquered peoples. I am also not promoting the expulsion of anyone (including the Jewish "settlers" which I am pretty sure you do support expelling.) IF a crime of expulsion has been committed, it has been committed by (and only by) the Muslim ME nations which expelled their Jewish populations. And I agree the current demographics are an egg that can't be unbroken (and needn't be).

It seems unlikely that a single State is a practical solution given the current animosity between the two parties. Why not two States?

The armed migration of Europeans to Palestine was extremely harmful to the native Muslims and Christians. How can people from Europe that went to Palestine to establish a Jewish state be the invaded people? You are ridiculous. So, the Muslims and Christians were not expelled from Palestine in your opinion. The reason there will never be a solution because people like you, who are perhaps less rabid than some others, live in a fantasy world regarding the actual events in order to justify what anyone with a neutral view can see was a European land grab from native people living on another continent.

 

[Shusha]

Was Jewish history "erased" before the Zionists invaded Palestine? I don't get your point. Was it necessary to expel the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine from their land and home to prevent the erasure of Jewish history?

My point, originally, was that anti-Zionism is not about Palestinian rights. But about the erasure, retraction, refusal, restriction and rejection of Jewish rights.

And that the fact that one peoples have rights does not prevent the other from also having rights.

 

[Shusha]

So, the Muslims and Christians were not expelled from Palestine in your opinion.

They were uprooted as a result of an unnecessary war brought about by Arabs from foreign sovereign States. This was not so with the Jewish expulsion. The Jewish people were not at war with anyone in their own native lands of the Muslim ME where they have lived for hundreds or thousands of years.

I can solve the conflict in less than a week, if I had a Team Palestine participant willing to actually engage in negotiations with me. Do you want to volunteer? I'll start a thread.

 

[montelatici]

Was Jewish history "erased" before the Zionists invaded Palestine? I don't get your point. Was it necessary to expel the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine from their land and home to prevent the erasure of Jewish history?

My point, originally, was that anti-Zionism is not about Palestinian rights. But about the erasure, retraction, refusal, restriction and rejection of Jewish rights.

And that the fact that one peoples have rights does not prevent the other from also having rights.

As long as Zionism (or any ideology) does not include the expulsion of native people and oppression of people because of their religions as part of the manifestation of the ideology. I have no problem with it. Palestinians are not afforded rights, they are under military occupation and that certainly prevents them from having rights.