Photos of Palestine , before israel

[Sixties Fan]

What Did Herman Melville Find on His 1857 Trip to Jerusalem? Dust, Flies, and Piles of Rocks.

A source from al_Jazeera! Ha Ha! How about something more neutral, not the mouthpiece of the huge Arab world?

Typical propaganda ploy. Criticize the source. Just ignore all of the evidence presented.

Find any mention of the country of Palestine (not just the region) or the mention of any one as Palestinians, and not as Arabs or Bedouins .

Palestine a Land virtually laid waste with little population

More Israeli talking points.

How many people called themselves US citizens before 1776?

Does that mean that they were not the same people who were there for the last couple hundred years?

The First nations were not considered Americans. They were not given citizenship or the right to vote until the 19th or 20th century.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The Europeans in America wanted to break from Britain. They fought against for Independence.

The Arabs never fought the Ottomans for an independent country in that area.

The indigenous Jews were the ones who eventually had to fight the Arabs, not the Ottoman Turks, post WWI to recreate their Nation on the land which had been their ancient homeland.


Apples and Oranges

Relevance?

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

 

[montelatici]

What Did Herman Melville Find on His 1857 Trip to Jerusalem? Dust, Flies, and Piles of Rocks.

Typical propaganda ploy. Criticize the source. Just ignore all of the evidence presented.

Find any mention of the country of Palestine (not just the region) or the mention of any one as Palestinians, and not as Arabs or Bedouins .

Palestine a Land virtually laid waste with little population

More Israeli talking points.

How many people called themselves US citizens before 1776?

Does that mean that they were not the same people who were there for the last couple hundred years?

The First nations were not considered Americans. They were not given citizenship or the right to vote until the 19th or 20th century.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The Europeans in America wanted to break from Britain. They fought against for Independence.

The Arabs never fought the Ottomans for an independent country in that area.

The indigenous Jews were the ones who eventually had to fight the Arabs, not the Ottoman Turks, post WWI to recreate their Nation on the land which had been their ancient homeland.


Apples and Oranges

Relevance?

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

The indigenous people, whether they practiced Judaism or other religions, had converted to Christianity by the time of the Muslim conquest. You are just making up stories. There was no mass Arabian migration to Palestine, the Arabians came as rulers they were not settler colonists.

 

[Sixties Fan]

What Did Herman Melville Find on His 1857 Trip to Jerusalem? Dust, Flies, and Piles of Rocks.

Find any mention of the country of Palestine (not just the region) or the mention of any one as Palestinians, and not as Arabs or Bedouins .

Palestine a Land virtually laid waste with little population

More Israeli talking points.

How many people called themselves US citizens before 1776?

Does that mean that they were not the same people who were there for the last couple hundred years?

The First nations were not considered Americans. They were not given citizenship or the right to vote until the 19th or 20th century.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The Europeans in America wanted to break from Britain. They fought against for Independence.

The Arabs never fought the Ottomans for an independent country in that area.

The indigenous Jews were the ones who eventually had to fight the Arabs, not the Ottoman Turks, post WWI to recreate their Nation on the land which had been their ancient homeland.


Apples and Oranges

Relevance?

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

The indigenous people, whether they practiced Judaism or other religions, had converted to Christianity by the time of the Muslim conquest. You are just making up stories. There was no mass Arabian migration to Palestine, the Arabians came as rulers they were not settler colonists.

You have no proof of what you said above.

Destroying the Jewish population of the area in your mind is no proof that they were not in the land, hiding (and many were ) until a better invader ruler came along.

The second wave of Arabs opened Jerusalem to the Jewish population. They were not forced to convert.

And the crusaders found a majority Jewish population in Jerusalem when they arrived there.

It is all recorded in the invader's records. The Byzantine, the Muslims, the Crusaders, the Ottomans. They all record Jewish populations in their historical documents.

I will let you look them up for yourself as I will not waste time looking for things you want to trash as untrue.

 

[Sixties Fan]

What Did Herman Melville Find on His 1857 Trip to Jerusalem? Dust, Flies, and Piles of Rocks.

Find any mention of the country of Palestine (not just the region) or the mention of any one as Palestinians, and not as Arabs or Bedouins .

Palestine a Land virtually laid waste with little population

More Israeli talking points.

How many people called themselves US citizens before 1776?

Does that mean that they were not the same people who were there for the last couple hundred years?

The First nations were not considered Americans. They were not given citizenship or the right to vote until the 19th or 20th century.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The Europeans in America wanted to break from Britain. They fought against for Independence.

The Arabs never fought the Ottomans for an independent country in that area.

The indigenous Jews were the ones who eventually had to fight the Arabs, not the Ottoman Turks, post WWI to recreate their Nation on the land which had been their ancient homeland.


Apples and Oranges

Relevance?

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

The indigenous people, whether they practiced Judaism or other religions, had converted to Christianity by the time of the Muslim conquest. You are just making up stories. There was no mass Arabian migration to Palestine, the Arabians came as rulers they were not settler colonists.

But settle some did , and built villages, and built Mosques over Jewish temples and Christian churches, and ruled over the indigenous population which was there before them, and all of those who were indigenous of the area who returned to the land over the 1300 years before WWI.

And the Arab settlers lived in peace or in war with all the indigenous population depending on what was happening at the time, which is no different from what happened to the Jews in Europe.

Deny all you want. For recorded history, it makes absolutely no difference.

 

[Shusha]

Did San Remo mention Israel or Jewish state? Did it mention the transfer of any land?

The Palestinians never rejected "a state" they rejected the partition of Palestine.

Don't be silly. Jewish National Home is written all over San Remo and the Mandate for Palestine. Jewish National Home means the same thing as any other National Home would mean -- self-determination and self-government (aka a State). And here's the test for it, using your own favourite words: self-determination is an inherent right of peoples. If you have suddenly decided that you no longer believe that -- try this on: The Arab Palestinian people have the right to live in the territory, but not the right to govern it.

The Arab Palestinians rejected (and still reject) Jewish sovereignty over any of the land. That is the problem. Yes, they do reject the partition of Palestine as well, but because they reject Jewish sovereignty.

 

[montelatici]

More Israeli talking points.

How many people called themselves US citizens before 1776?

Does that mean that they were not the same people who were there for the last couple hundred years?

The First nations were not considered Americans. They were not given citizenship or the right to vote until the 19th or 20th century.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The Europeans in America wanted to break from Britain. They fought against for Independence.

The Arabs never fought the Ottomans for an independent country in that area.

The indigenous Jews were the ones who eventually had to fight the Arabs, not the Ottoman Turks, post WWI to recreate their Nation on the land which had been their ancient homeland.


Apples and Oranges

Relevance?

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

The indigenous people, whether they practiced Judaism or other religions, had converted to Christianity by the time of the Muslim conquest. You are just making up stories. There was no mass Arabian migration to Palestine, the Arabians came as rulers they were not settler colonists.

But settle some did , and built villages, and built Mosques over Jewish temples and Christian churches, and ruled over the indigenous population which was there before them, and all of those who were indigenous of the area who returned to the land over the 1300 years before WWI.

And the Arab settlers lived in peace or in war with all the indigenous population depending on what was happening at the time, which is no different from what happened to the Jews in Europe.

Deny all you want. For recorded history, it makes absolutely no difference.

No, the Arabians only ruled, and they were very few. Palestine was still overwhelmingly Christian, ruled by Arabians, when the Crusaders arrived. This is recorded history. The Zionists were/are mostly descendants of European converts. The indigenous people merely converted to Christianity and then most to Islam later. The Muslim and Christian Palestinians on the other hand are mostly descendants of the indigenous people that converted.

"European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"
Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree

 

[montelatici]

Did San Remo mention Israel or Jewish state? Did it mention the transfer of any land?

The Palestinians never rejected "a state" they rejected the partition of Palestine.

Don't be silly. Jewish National Home is written all over San Remo and the Mandate for Palestine. Jewish National Home means the same thing as any other National Home would mean -- self-determination and self-government (aka a State). And here's the test for it, using your own favourite words: self-determination is an inherent right of peoples. If you have suddenly decided that you no longer believe that -- try this on: The Arab Palestinian people have the right to live in the territory, but not the right to govern it.

The Arab Palestinians rejected (and still reject) Jewish sovereignty over any of the land. That is the problem. Yes, they do reject the partition of Palestine as well, but because they reject Jewish sovereignty.

The British Colonial Office was clear that the Jewish National Home was not to be interpreted as a sovereign Jewish state that would rule over the native people of Palestine. You need to do some research rather than parroting Zionist propaganda.

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:



"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised 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 Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

 

[Sixties Fan]

The First nations were not considered Americans. They were not given citizenship or the right to vote until the 19th or 20th century.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The Europeans in America wanted to break from Britain. They fought against for Independence.

The Arabs never fought the Ottomans for an independent country in that area.

The indigenous Jews were the ones who eventually had to fight the Arabs, not the Ottoman Turks, post WWI to recreate their Nation on the land which had been their ancient homeland.


Apples and Oranges

Relevance?

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

The indigenous people, whether they practiced Judaism or other religions, had converted to Christianity by the time of the Muslim conquest. You are just making up stories. There was no mass Arabian migration to Palestine, the Arabians came as rulers they were not settler colonists.

But settle some did , and built villages, and built Mosques over Jewish temples and Christian churches, and ruled over the indigenous population which was there before them, and all of those who were indigenous of the area who returned to the land over the 1300 years before WWI.

And the Arab settlers lived in peace or in war with all the indigenous population depending on what was happening at the time, which is no different from what happened to the Jews in Europe.

Deny all you want. For recorded history, it makes absolutely no difference.

No, the Arabians only ruled, and they were very few. Palestine was still overwhelmingly Christian, ruled by Arabians, when the Crusaders arrived. This is recorded history. The Zionists were/are mostly descendants of European converts. The indigenous people merely converted to Christianity and then most to Islam later. The Muslim and Christian Palestinians on the other hand are mostly descendants of the indigenous people that converted.

"European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"
Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree

"The Zionists were/are mostly descendants of European converts."

Yes....Sure.....Those Europeans were such gluttons for punishment that they chose to convert to a religion which was vilified (to death, literally) both in Europe and amongst the Muslims, from Arabia to North Africa.

"Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"

Oooops!!! Debunked too many times to want to bother again.

And so are all the other voodoo studies which have come up for the past 100 years to discredit Jews as the indigenous people of the Land of Israel.

 

[montelatici]

More Israeli talking points.

How many people called themselves US citizens before 1776?

Does that mean that they were not the same people who were there for the last couple hundred years?

The First nations were not considered Americans. They were not given citizenship or the right to vote until the 19th or 20th century.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The Europeans in America wanted to break from Britain. They fought against for Independence.

The Arabs never fought the Ottomans for an independent country in that area.

The indigenous Jews were the ones who eventually had to fight the Arabs, not the Ottoman Turks, post WWI to recreate their Nation on the land which had been their ancient homeland.


Apples and Oranges

Relevance?

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

The indigenous people, whether they practiced Judaism or other religions, had converted to Christianity by the time of the Muslim conquest. You are just making up stories. There was no mass Arabian migration to Palestine, the Arabians came as rulers they were not settler colonists.

You have no proof of what you said above.

Destroying the Jewish population of the area in your mind is no proof that they were not in the land, hiding (and many were ) until a better invader ruler came along.

The second wave of Arabs opened Jerusalem to the Jewish population. They were not forced to convert.

And the crusaders found a majority Jewish population in Jerusalem when they arrived there.

It is all recorded in the invader's records. The Byzantine, the Muslims, the Crusaders, the Ottomans. They all record Jewish populations in their historical documents.

I will let you look them up for yourself as I will not waste time looking for things you want to trash as untrue.

I have the historical documents, there were less than 10,000 Jews in Palestine in 1893, and most were recent arrivals. Kudus Special District is Palestine. You are just making things up and/or parroting Zionist propaganda. I have the sources and the facts. Anyone can read the factual sources, you just prefer to rely on propaganda.

Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893 on JSTOR

 

[Sixties Fan]

Did San Remo mention Israel or Jewish state? Did it mention the transfer of any land?

The Palestinians never rejected "a state" they rejected the partition of Palestine.

Don't be silly. Jewish National Home is written all over San Remo and the Mandate for Palestine. Jewish National Home means the same thing as any other National Home would mean -- self-determination and self-government (aka a State). And here's the test for it, using your own favourite words: self-determination is an inherent right of peoples. If you have suddenly decided that you no longer believe that -- try this on: The Arab Palestinian people have the right to live in the territory, but not the right to govern it.

The Arab Palestinians rejected (and still reject) Jewish sovereignty over any of the land. That is the problem. Yes, they do reject the partition of Palestine as well, but because they reject Jewish sovereignty.

The British Colonial Office was clear that the Jewish National Home was not to be interpreted as a sovereign Jewish state that would rule over the native people of Palestine. You need to do some research rather than parroting Zionist propaganda.

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:



"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised 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 Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine."

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)

UNISPAL is not an unbiased source. It is clearly on the side of the Palestinian cause for the destruction of Israel

ABOUT UNISPAL

The United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) was established and is being developed by the Division for Palestinian Rights in response to successive General Assembly mandates

-----------------

The Mandate for Palestine was to be the Mandate for a Jewish Homeland just as the other 99% of the land was to remain in Arab/Muslim hands.
All non Jews were to continue to live in the Mandate, but the Jews were to be the sovereign government of the State, once created.

Reread the San Remo Accords and the articles of the Mandate for Palestine

San Remo Resolution


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

 

[montelatici]

Relevance?

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

The indigenous people, whether they practiced Judaism or other religions, had converted to Christianity by the time of the Muslim conquest. You are just making up stories. There was no mass Arabian migration to Palestine, the Arabians came as rulers they were not settler colonists.

But settle some did , and built villages, and built Mosques over Jewish temples and Christian churches, and ruled over the indigenous population which was there before them, and all of those who were indigenous of the area who returned to the land over the 1300 years before WWI.

And the Arab settlers lived in peace or in war with all the indigenous population depending on what was happening at the time, which is no different from what happened to the Jews in Europe.

Deny all you want. For recorded history, it makes absolutely no difference.

No, the Arabians only ruled, and they were very few. Palestine was still overwhelmingly Christian, ruled by Arabians, when the Crusaders arrived. This is recorded history. The Zionists were/are mostly descendants of European converts. The indigenous people merely converted to Christianity and then most to Islam later. The Muslim and Christian Palestinians on the other hand are mostly descendants of the indigenous people that converted.

"European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"
Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree

"The Zionists were/are mostly descendants of European converts."

Yes....Sure.....Those Europeans were such gluttons for punishment that they chose to convert to a religion which was vilified (to death, literally) both in Europe and amongst the Muslims, from Arabia to North Africa.

"Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"

Oooops!!! Debunked too many times to want to bother again.

And so are all the other voodoo studies which have come up for the past 100 years to discredit Jews as the indigenous people of the Land of Israel.

It's never been debunked, it's the inconvenient truth for you nutters. But get serious, do you really think that a descendant of an indigenous person of the Middle East, much less Palestine would ever could ever look like this? Just use common sense. He is European, FFS.

 

[montelatici]

Did San Remo mention Israel or Jewish state? Did it mention the transfer of any land?

The Palestinians never rejected "a state" they rejected the partition of Palestine.

Don't be silly. Jewish National Home is written all over San Remo and the Mandate for Palestine. Jewish National Home means the same thing as any other National Home would mean -- self-determination and self-government (aka a State). And here's the test for it, using your own favourite words: self-determination is an inherent right of peoples. If you have suddenly decided that you no longer believe that -- try this on: The Arab Palestinian people have the right to live in the territory, but not the right to govern it.

The Arab Palestinians rejected (and still reject) Jewish sovereignty over any of the land. That is the problem. Yes, they do reject the partition of Palestine as well, but because they reject Jewish sovereignty.

The British Colonial Office was clear that the Jewish National Home was not to be interpreted as a sovereign Jewish state that would rule over the native people of Palestine. You need to do some research rather than parroting Zionist propaganda.

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:



"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised 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 Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine."

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)

UNISPAL is not an unbiased source. It is clearly on the side of the Palestinian cause for the destruction of Israel

ABOUT UNISPAL

The United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) was established and is being developed by the Division for Palestinian Rights in response to successive General Assembly mandates

-----------------

The Mandate for Palestine was to be the Mandate for a Jewish Homeland just as the other 99% of the land was to remain in Arab/Muslim hands.
All non Jews were to continue to live in the Mandate, but the Jews were to be the sovereign government of the State, once created.

Reread the San Remo Accords and the articles of the Mandate for Palestine

San Remo Resolution


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

They are original Covenant of the League of Nations source documents hosted in the UN archives you idiot. They reflect the facts, your propaganda.

Both the Mandate and the San Remo Conference stated the following:

" it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.."

The civil rights of the non-Jews, placing them under Jew rule and preventing the non-Jews from exercising their right to self-determination as the inhabitants of Palestine, while facilitating said right to people living in Europe. All contrary to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which states in part:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant....."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

The Jews were in Europe, the Muslims and Christians were the inhabitants.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

The indigenous people, whether they practiced Judaism or other religions, had converted to Christianity by the time of the Muslim conquest. You are just making up stories. There was no mass Arabian migration to Palestine, the Arabians came as rulers they were not settler colonists.

But settle some did , and built villages, and built Mosques over Jewish temples and Christian churches, and ruled over the indigenous population which was there before them, and all of those who were indigenous of the area who returned to the land over the 1300 years before WWI.

And the Arab settlers lived in peace or in war with all the indigenous population depending on what was happening at the time, which is no different from what happened to the Jews in Europe.

Deny all you want. For recorded history, it makes absolutely no difference.

No, the Arabians only ruled, and they were very few. Palestine was still overwhelmingly Christian, ruled by Arabians, when the Crusaders arrived. This is recorded history. The Zionists were/are mostly descendants of European converts. The indigenous people merely converted to Christianity and then most to Islam later. The Muslim and Christian Palestinians on the other hand are mostly descendants of the indigenous people that converted.

"European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"
Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree

"The Zionists were/are mostly descendants of European converts."

Yes....Sure.....Those Europeans were such gluttons for punishment that they chose to convert to a religion which was vilified (to death, literally) both in Europe and amongst the Muslims, from Arabia to North Africa.

"Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"

Oooops!!! Debunked too many times to want to bother again.

And so are all the other voodoo studies which have come up for the past 100 years to discredit Jews as the indigenous people of the Land of Israel.

It's never been debunked, it's the inconvenient truth for you nutters. But get serious, do you really think that a descendant of an indigenous person of the Middle East, much less Palestine would ever could ever look like this? Just use common sense. He is European, FFS.

Maybe you have not read the Torah.

There are descriptions of what the Jewish people looked like.
They were a meltdown of all different people, including blonde, blue eyed, green eyed ones.

It does not matter what you think.

It matters who the Jewish People really are and continue to be, no matter what they look like.

Like the ones in Yemen, in Iraq, in Iran, in Syria, in Russia, in the Netherlands, in Italy, or anywhere else.
They are the indigenous people of Israel.

The First Nations, who came from Europe and Asia, did not look as they do today when they found the Americans 50,000 years ago. Today, their features are what identify them as the First nations.

You may not recognize a "Jewish Look", but Jews do, and so do many others.

They lived relatively isolated from all others in order to preserve their religion and their way of living.

To this day there are descendants of the Jews who went to Rome with Caesar.
But you do not care about it, much less how they know that.

Your assumptions of what the Jewish People were supposed to look like 2000 years ago is tripping you, as it does with all others who insist in denying the Jews what is rightfully theirs. Their Ancient Homeland.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Biblical Lands: 19th-Century Photography (Getty Villa Exhibitions)

 

[Darkwind]

Spectacular historic aerial shots of pre-state Israel revealed

before the immigrants took over

Meaningless images without an 'after' image of the exact same locations.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The relevance is in what I wrote which you choose to not understand, much less accept.

The indigenous people are relevant to the conversation.
That would be the Jewish people, and not all the Arabs who moved into the Jewish Homeland for all the 1300 years of Arab domination.

The European "Americans" were not the indigenous people of the Americans, anymore than Europeans were the indigenous people who ended up forming the countries of Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or making Hawaii part of the USA.

As I may have said before.....
Neither the Europeans, nor the Arabs, with their conquests for the past 1300 years, replace the indigenous people of any of the lands they conquered, whether they built nations/states or not.

The indigenous people, whether they practiced Judaism or other religions, had converted to Christianity by the time of the Muslim conquest. You are just making up stories. There was no mass Arabian migration to Palestine, the Arabians came as rulers they were not settler colonists.

But settle some did , and built villages, and built Mosques over Jewish temples and Christian churches, and ruled over the indigenous population which was there before them, and all of those who were indigenous of the area who returned to the land over the 1300 years before WWI.

And the Arab settlers lived in peace or in war with all the indigenous population depending on what was happening at the time, which is no different from what happened to the Jews in Europe.

Deny all you want. For recorded history, it makes absolutely no difference.

No, the Arabians only ruled, and they were very few. Palestine was still overwhelmingly Christian, ruled by Arabians, when the Crusaders arrived. This is recorded history. The Zionists were/are mostly descendants of European converts. The indigenous people merely converted to Christianity and then most to Islam later. The Muslim and Christian Palestinians on the other hand are mostly descendants of the indigenous people that converted.

"European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"
Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree

"The Zionists were/are mostly descendants of European converts."

Yes....Sure.....Those Europeans were such gluttons for punishment that they chose to convert to a religion which was vilified (to death, literally) both in Europe and amongst the Muslims, from Arabia to North Africa.

"Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"

Oooops!!! Debunked too many times to want to bother again.

And so are all the other voodoo studies which have come up for the past 100 years to discredit Jews as the indigenous people of the Land of Israel.

It's never been debunked, it's the inconvenient truth for you nutters. But get serious, do you really think that a descendant of an indigenous person of the Middle East, much less Palestine would ever could ever look like this? Just use common sense. He is European, FFS.

I have some Israeli cousins whose grandparents came from Eastern Europe, after WW2. They have darker complexions than me (I'm in America), and look almost like Arabs. That's what the Middle East climate can do to ppl after 2 generations. And the European climate can work wonders as well.

 

[teddyearp]

There was no need to use heavy weaponry on me Teddy my friend....steve

But, but, but, you were using a blow torch!

 

[Sixties Fan]

Did San Remo mention Israel or Jewish state? Did it mention the transfer of any land?

The Palestinians never rejected "a state" they rejected the partition of Palestine.

Don't be silly. Jewish National Home is written all over San Remo and the Mandate for Palestine. Jewish National Home means the same thing as any other National Home would mean -- self-determination and self-government (aka a State). And here's the test for it, using your own favourite words: self-determination is an inherent right of peoples. If you have suddenly decided that you no longer believe that -- try this on: The Arab Palestinian people have the right to live in the territory, but not the right to govern it.

The Arab Palestinians rejected (and still reject) Jewish sovereignty over any of the land. That is the problem. Yes, they do reject the partition of Palestine as well, but because they reject Jewish sovereignty.

The British Colonial Office was clear that the Jewish National Home was not to be interpreted as a sovereign Jewish state that would rule over the native people of Palestine. You need to do some research rather than parroting Zionist propaganda.

PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:



"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised 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 Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine."

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)

UNISPAL is not an unbiased source. It is clearly on the side of the Palestinian cause for the destruction of Israel

ABOUT UNISPAL

The United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) was established and is being developed by the Division for Palestinian Rights in response to successive General Assembly mandates

-----------------

The Mandate for Palestine was to be the Mandate for a Jewish Homeland just as the other 99% of the land was to remain in Arab/Muslim hands.
All non Jews were to continue to live in the Mandate, but the Jews were to be the sovereign government of the State, once created.

Reread the San Remo Accords and the articles of the Mandate for Palestine

San Remo Resolution


The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

They are original Covenant of the League of Nations source documents hosted in the UN archives you idiot. They reflect the facts, your propaganda.

Both the Mandate and the San Remo Conference stated the following:

" it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.."

The civil rights of the non-Jews, placing them under Jew rule and preventing the non-Jews from exercising their right to self-determination as the inhabitants of Palestine, while facilitating said right to people living in Europe. All contrary to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which states in part:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant....."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

The Jews were in Europe, the Muslims and Christians were the inhabitants.

Which site did you get this quote? UNISPAL ?

""ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which".....(etc)

I ask, because I just looked for the whole quote in either site I posted , and neither one says that .

How much of what UNISPAL says in its documents has been changed to accommodate what the Arabs see as their rights to the land?

The originals contradict what you are wishing others to believe.

Here is the original:

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
Mandate :

ART. 22.
English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.


San Remo Resolution
San Remo Resolution:

"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israeli history photo of the week: Yemenite Jews

 

[Sixties Fan]

Ynetnews Travel - Photos: The unknown story of Yemen's Jews