Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered

[Sixties Fan]

3. Your claim was that the Mandate for the Jewish State did not give all the territory to the Jewish State.

The Mandate had no territory to give.

Only in your mind.

 

[Sixties Fan]

3. Your claim was that the Mandate for the Jewish State did not give all the territory to the Jewish State.

The Mandate had no territory to give.

Always, only in your mind.

 

[P F Tinmore]

3. Your claim was that the Mandate for the Jewish State did not give all the territory to the Jewish State.

The Mandate had no territory to give.

Only in your mind.

Its true. Look it up.

Of course you won't. Zionists prefer to stay stupid.

 

[Sixties Fan]

3. Your claim was that the Mandate for the Jewish State did not give all the territory to the Jewish State.

The Mandate had no territory to give.

Only in your mind.

Its true. Look it up.

Of course you won't. Zionists prefer to stay stupid.

I have the Mandate right in front of me.

You find the article which says that in 1922 the whole Mandate for Palestine, including TransJordan was not to become the the homeland, again, for the Jewish People.

WHAT other people were included in that Mandate in 1922?

 

[P F Tinmore]

3. Your claim was that the Mandate for the Jewish State did not give all the territory to the Jewish State.

The Mandate had no territory to give.

Only in your mind.

Its true. Look it up.

Of course you won't. Zionists prefer to stay stupid.

I have the Mandate right in front of me.

You find the article which says that in 1922 the whole Mandate for Palestine, including TransJordan was not to become the the homeland, again, for the Jewish People.

WHAT other people were included in that Mandate in 1922?

The people who lived there.

 

[Sixties Fan]

3. Your claim was that the Mandate for the Jewish State did not give all the territory to the Jewish State.

The Mandate had no territory to give.

Only in your mind.

Its true. Look it up.

Of course you won't. Zionists prefer to stay stupid.

I have the Mandate right in front of me.

You find the article which says that in 1922 the whole Mandate for Palestine, including TransJordan was not to become the the homeland, again, for the Jewish People.

WHAT other people were included in that Mandate in 1922?

The people who lived there.

What people?

And where in the Mandate that it says that there is going to be a separate State in the Mandate for any of them, in 1922?

Read it, before you answer.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Mandate had no territory to give.

Only in your mind.

Its true. Look it up.

Of course you won't. Zionists prefer to stay stupid.

I have the Mandate right in front of me.

You find the article which says that in 1922 the whole Mandate for Palestine, including TransJordan was not to become the the homeland, again, for the Jewish People.

WHAT other people were included in that Mandate in 1922?

The people who lived there.

What people?

And where in the Mandate that it says that there is going to be a separate State in the Mandate for any of them, in 1922?

Read it, before you answer.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Read it before you question. The Mandate was not a land deal.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Only in your mind.

Its true. Look it up.

Of course you won't. Zionists prefer to stay stupid.

I have the Mandate right in front of me.

You find the article which says that in 1922 the whole Mandate for Palestine, including TransJordan was not to become the the homeland, again, for the Jewish People.

WHAT other people were included in that Mandate in 1922?

The people who lived there.

What people?

And where in the Mandate that it says that there is going to be a separate State in the Mandate for any of them, in 1922?

Read it, before you answer.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Read it before you question. The Mandate was not a land deal.

You are done here.

The Mandate for Palestine was not a "land deal" ?

Then neither were :

Lebanon

Syria

Iraq


Make sure you tell the UN that none of those Mandates have ever been valid.

 

[Slyhunter]

Perfectly defining your logic. To you, winning and losing a war is the same thing. Thank you!

That's not what I said. Why do you lie?

Comparing Israel gain of land when they won their war to Hitlers loss of land when he lost his war is the saying just that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Its true. Look it up.

Of course you won't. Zionists prefer to stay stupid.

I have the Mandate right in front of me.

You find the article which says that in 1922 the whole Mandate for Palestine, including TransJordan was not to become the the homeland, again, for the Jewish People.

WHAT other people were included in that Mandate in 1922?

The people who lived there.

What people?

And where in the Mandate that it says that there is going to be a separate State in the Mandate for any of them, in 1922?

Read it, before you answer.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Read it before you question. The Mandate was not a land deal.

You are done here.

The Mandate for Palestine was not a "land deal" ?

Then neither were :

Lebanon

Syria

Iraq


Make sure you tell the UN that none of those Mandates have ever been valid.

Of course you do not understand it. That is no surprise. Israeli bullshit says that the Mandate was Palestine.

Matz, 2005, p.70-71, "Primarily, two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” on the other... The principle of administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory’s administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people."

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia​

 

[USAF 2023]

Yawn...,. Who gives a Shit? If Israel had lost the ‘67 War you would not be quoting the Geneva Convention. FUCK YOU !!!’

Yes I would. Nice to see you and Hitler think the same way. Might makes right!

This will be my last post in this thread.

Your last post? GOD is good!!!!

 

[USAF 2023]

Perfectly defining your logic. To you, winning and losing a war is the same thing. Thank you!

That's not what I said. Why do you lie?

Comparing Israel gain of land when they won their war to Hitlers loss of land when he lost his war is the saying just that.

That’s not even the point. Hitler initiated the War; that’s the difference. That dumb FUCK doesn’t have the intelligence to understand it

 

[Hollie]

I have the Mandate right in front of me.

You find the article which says that in 1922 the whole Mandate for Palestine, including TransJordan was not to become the the homeland, again, for the Jewish People.

WHAT other people were included in that Mandate in 1922?

The people who lived there.

What people?

And where in the Mandate that it says that there is going to be a separate State in the Mandate for any of them, in 1922?

Read it, before you answer.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Read it before you question. The Mandate was not a land deal.

You are done here.

The Mandate for Palestine was not a "land deal" ?

Then neither were :

Lebanon

Syria

Iraq


Make sure you tell the UN that none of those Mandates have ever been valid.

Of course you do not understand it. That is no surprise. Israeli bullshit says that the Mandate was Palestine.

Matz, 2005, p.70-71, "Primarily, two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” on the other... The principle of administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory’s administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people."

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia​

It seems your wiki’fied version of rather odd reinvention of history has a root cause.


who can edit wikipedia - Google Search

“Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.”

 

[admonit]

Cannot demand what you never have.

I'm sure you can provide your land ownership certificate.

Sure. It's called UN Resolution 242.

Now quote me please the name of the "owner" from this useless document.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The people who lived there.

What people?

And where in the Mandate that it says that there is going to be a separate State in the Mandate for any of them, in 1922?

Read it, before you answer.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Read it before you question. The Mandate was not a land deal.

You are done here.

The Mandate for Palestine was not a "land deal" ?

Then neither were :

Lebanon

Syria

Iraq


Make sure you tell the UN that none of those Mandates have ever been valid.

Of course you do not understand it. That is no surprise. Israeli bullshit says that the Mandate was Palestine.

Matz, 2005, p.70-71, "Primarily, two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” on the other... The principle of administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory’s administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people."

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia​

It seems your wiki’fied version of rather odd reinvention of history has a root cause.


who can edit wikipedia - Google Search

“Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.”

Lame attempt at deflection.

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia

You can't edit source material.

 

[Hollie]

What people?

And where in the Mandate that it says that there is going to be a separate State in the Mandate for any of them, in 1922?

Read it, before you answer.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Read it before you question. The Mandate was not a land deal.

You are done here.

The Mandate for Palestine was not a "land deal" ?

Then neither were :

Lebanon

Syria

Iraq


Make sure you tell the UN that none of those Mandates have ever been valid.

Of course you do not understand it. That is no surprise. Israeli bullshit says that the Mandate was Palestine.

Matz, 2005, p.70-71, "Primarily, two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” on the other... The principle of administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory’s administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people."

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia​

It seems your wiki’fied version of rather odd reinvention of history has a root cause.


who can edit wikipedia - Google Search

“Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.”

Lame attempt at deflection.

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia

You can't edit source material.

What people?

And where in the Mandate that it says that there is going to be a separate State in the Mandate for any of them, in 1922?

Read it, before you answer.

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Read it before you question. The Mandate was not a land deal.

You are done here.

The Mandate for Palestine was not a "land deal" ?

Then neither were :

Lebanon

Syria

Iraq


Make sure you tell the UN that none of those Mandates have ever been valid.

Of course you do not understand it. That is no surprise. Israeli bullshit says that the Mandate was Palestine.

Matz, 2005, p.70-71, "Primarily, two elements formed the core of the Mandate System, the principle of non-annexation of the territory on the one hand and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” on the other... The principle of administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” was designed to prevent a practice of imperial exploitation of the mandated territory in contrast to former colonial habits. Instead, the Mandatory’s administration should assist in developing the territory for the well-being of its native people."

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia​

It seems your wiki’fied version of rather odd reinvention of history has a root cause.


who can edit wikipedia - Google Search

“Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.”

Lame attempt at deflection.

League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia

You can't edit source material.

Anything can be edited on wiki. This is just more of your usual practice of spamming threads with off-topic cut and paste whining about the history that causes you such Islamo-angst.

Do you realize that your shrill screeching causes all the dogs in my neighborhood to start barking.

 

[AsherN]

First it is a fence, and again you show you have no idea what you are arguing about. Second, attacking the fence is an attack on Israel because the fence prevents Palestinian terrorists from attacking Israeli civilians.

This doesn't look like a fence to me.

That makes up less than 4% of the fence. And is erected in areas susceptible to sniper.

 

[toomuchtime_]

First it is a fence, and again you show you have no idea what you are arguing about. Second, attacking the fence is an attack on Israel because the fence prevents Palestinian terrorists from attacking Israeli civilians.

This doesn't look like a fence to me.

That makes up less than 4% of the fence. And is erected in areas susceptible to sniper.

In fact, that's not even the Gaza fence, it's the fence along the green line.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Some (and only some) of your commentary here is based on → or in accordance with → reason. Some of this commentary has been overtaken by events or based on the assumption that other authorities are correct --- when they are in fact, seriously flawed.

Cannot demand what you never have.
I'm sure you can provide your land ownership certificate.

Sure. It's called UN Resolution 242.

(REFERENCES and ANNEXES)

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict known as the "Six Day War" extended over the period 5 June until 10 June 10th 1967.
• Resolution S/RES/242 22 November 1967 Emphasized: The inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.
• According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”

✪⇒ Annexes to Commentary:

Annex I: Maps Delineation Armistice Lines for the West Bank Palestine (North & South sheets), Jerusalem, Latrun
Annex II: General Armistice - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel - Rhodes, 3 April 1949
Annex III: Map outlining the general areas known as the Occupied Territories Map 3243 Rev 4 UN 1967 → Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967.​

(COMMENT)

According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary, (at the time of the composition) and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → "Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Similarly, Lord Caradon (Hugh Mackintosh Foot), Permanent Representative of the UK to UN, said: "They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."

The intent of Resolution 242 "called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” (Eugene Rostow Undersecretary of State for Political Affair)

The Arab Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. Resolution 242 DOES NOT require that Israel give the Arab Palestinians any political rights or territory.

Some? You are collectively punishing the entire population and that is a war crime. You're building structures on land you don't own.

(COMMENT)

The imposition of restrictions placed upon the entity --- or --- unilateral actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian entity for political or security reasons, is no more a case of "collective punishment" than any multilateral sanction the international community or regional alliances places upon belligerent nations anywhere else.

You need to do your homework before you open your mouth and look like an idiot.

The Fourth Geneva Convention
The applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to "all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967" is held with "a remarkable degree of unanimity" among international actors.

In a 2004 advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice stated that Article 2 of the Convention applied to the case of Israel's presence in the territories captured during the 1967 war.

It stated that Article 2 applies if there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties, regardless of the territories' status in international law prior to the armed attack.

It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).
​

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is all Article 2 related concepts, that apply equally to the protection and security of the state of Israel from Arab Palestinian elements attempting to topple the Israeli Government. And it is one-sided. It does not mention that Article 51 allows for the Israeli Defense against Arab Palestinian attacks. Nor does this one-sided commentary allow for the view that Israel has territorial integrity or political independence. Nor does the commentary points out that Arab Palestinian has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel --- or --- using threats or use of force as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian should be seeking settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. BUT --- what we actually see is the Arab Palestinian intentionally creating conditions with preventing meaningful meeting towards peace.

It is also worth noting...

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.​

(COMMENT)

In 1967, the Israelis DID NOT occupy any Palestinian territory. It engaged two nations that either threatened to use force, or actually did use force, that provoked a military response.

• In 1979, Egypt, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with Israelis.
• In 1994, Jordan, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with the Israelis.​

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully.
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Some (and only some) of your commentary here is based on → or in accordance with → reason. Some of this commentary has been overtaken by events or based on the assumption that other authorities are correct --- when they are in fact, seriously flawed.

Cannot demand what you never have.
I'm sure you can provide your land ownership certificate.

Sure. It's called UN Resolution 242.

(REFERENCES and ANNEXES)

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict known as the "Six Day War" extended over the period 5 June until 10 June 10th 1967.
• Resolution S/RES/242 22 November 1967 Emphasized: The inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.
• According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”

✪⇒ Annexes to Commentary:

Annex I: Maps Delineation Armistice Lines for the West Bank Palestine (North & South sheets), Jerusalem, Latrun
Annex II: General Armistice - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel - Rhodes, 3 April 1949
Annex III: Map outlining the general areas known as the Occupied Territories Map 3243 Rev 4 UN 1967 → Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967.​

(COMMENT)

According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary, (at the time of the composition) and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → "Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Similarly, Lord Caradon (Hugh Mackintosh Foot), Permanent Representative of the UK to UN, said: "They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."

The intent of Resolution 242 "called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” (Eugene Rostow Undersecretary of State for Political Affair)

The Arab Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. Resolution 242 DOES NOT require that Israel give the Arab Palestinians any political rights or territory.

Some? You are collectively punishing the entire population and that is a war crime. You're building structures on land you don't own.

(COMMENT)

The imposition of restrictions placed upon the entity --- or --- unilateral actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian entity for political or security reasons, is no more a case of "collective punishment" than any multilateral sanction the international community or regional alliances places upon belligerent nations anywhere else.

You need to do your homework before you open your mouth and look like an idiot.

The Fourth Geneva Convention
The applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to "all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967" is held with "a remarkable degree of unanimity" among international actors.

In a 2004 advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice stated that Article 2 of the Convention applied to the case of Israel's presence in the territories captured during the 1967 war.

It stated that Article 2 applies if there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties, regardless of the territories' status in international law prior to the armed attack.

It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).
​

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is all Article 2 related concepts, that apply equally to the protection and security of the state of Israel from Arab Palestinian elements attempting to topple the Israeli Government. And it is one-sided. It does not mention that Article 51 allows for the Israeli Defense against Arab Palestinian attacks. Nor does this one-sided commentary allow for the view that Israel has territorial integrity or political independence. Nor does the commentary points out that Arab Palestinian has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel --- or --- using threats or use of force as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian should be seeking settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. BUT --- what we actually see is the Arab Palestinian intentionally creating conditions with preventing meaningful meeting towards peace.

It is also worth noting...

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.​

(COMMENT)

In 1967, the Israelis DID NOT occupy any Palestinian territory. It engaged two nations that either threatened to use force, or actually did use force, that provoked a military response.

• In 1979, Egypt, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with Israelis.
• In 1994, Jordan, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with the Israelis.​

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully.
R

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?