The events in Jerusalem

[ForeverYoung436]

Khdeir, a 16-year-old Palestinian, was forced into a car by Israeli settlers on an East Jerusalem street

You claim he was Homosexual, GHook, have you any proof, and that would make his killing Homophobic too

You mean just like those 3 Jewish Yeshiva students were forced into a car by Arabs, shot, dismembered, and had their corpses hidden?

 

[fanger]

Khdeir, a 16-year-old Palestinian, was forced into a car by Israeli settlers on an East Jerusalem street

You claim he was Homosexual, GHook, have you any proof, and that would make his killing Homophobic too

You mean just like those 3 Jewish Yeshiva students were forced into a car by Arabs, shot, dismembered, and had their corpses hidden?

Where they Homosexual too!

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Khdeir, a 16-year-old Palestinian, was forced into a car by Israeli settlers on an East Jerusalem street

You claim he was Homosexual, GHook, have you any proof, and that would make his killing Homophobic too

You mean just like those 3 Jewish Yeshiva students were forced into a car by Arabs, shot, dismembered, and had their corpses hidden?

Where they Homosexual too!

Judging by your avatar, that's a big issue for you.

 

[fanger]

It seems to be an issue for Gwendolin

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I will say this, and from what I've heard, it's still the case. When I lived in Israel, hitch-hiking or "tremping" was a popular thing to do. So getting the teens into their cars, in either case, was probably not a hard thing to do. People, don't hitch-hike!

 

[fanger]

Do Arabs ride with jews?

 

[Shusha]

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You keep claiming this despite how many times you've been demonstrated to be wrong about this.

The Ottoman (Turkish) Empire did not cede the territory in question to anyone. Period. Full stop. Read the bloody treaty.

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.


Read that first sentence again: Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever

There is no ...."in favor of", or "cedes to". Turkey renounces all rights and title. Period. Full stop. So ENOUGH with the "Ottomans ceded the land to successor States'. She did not. She renounced them.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory

Article 30 says no such thing.

Article 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

This states that the residents of the territory will become citizens of the sovereign to whom the territory is transferred. It in no way indicates who that sovereign is. (That sovereign, however, IS mentioned by the Parties to whom the power of decision was transferred by this Treaty.)

and who would be the citizens of their respective territory.

Yes. This is correct. The Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory were to become nationals of the State (sovereign) to whom the territory was transferred. (And, in point of fact, this actually came to pass).

The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

Yes, you keep saying that, but have yet to provide the source of this in law. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. As a general concept, it is not disagreeable or even incorrect, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you tend to deliberately conflate/confuse/ignore who the legal 'citizens' were (according to those with the sovereign power to make those decisions). And you tend to assume that the citizens had no agency to choose for themselves their own sovereignty (self-determination).

All that, and nothing to prove that I am incorrect.

Oh you've got to be kidding me. Merely posting the words of the treaty proves you incorrect.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow, You are something...

I'm not trying to disagree.

Neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians had Palestinian Citizenship in Palestine. No country existed and no State had yet been created.

Yes, it has been land theft.
In 1920 the British made the Jews leave their homes and lands in Gaza and not allowed to return.

In 1925 the Hashemite Arabs were gifted 78% of the Jewish homeland under the Mandate for Palestine. All Jews were expelled from those lands.

In 1929 the Arabs rioted in Hebron and who got expelled? The Jews, until 1967.

In 1948, 5 Arab Armies invaded the new State of Israel and took all of Judea, Samaria and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem stealing all of that land and expelling all of the Jews.

--------------
At some point, you and others are going to have to come to term with, Yes, it is about land, especially land controlled by Muslims which non Muslims are not allowed to have and much less become sovereign over.

(COMMENT)

You are correct, there was not "state" as in a self-governing institution. The "Government of Palestine" is the terminology of the courts (the title of the legal entity). But what is often misunderstood are:

• The Government of Palestine is the same as saying the Mandatory to which the Mandate applied.

View attachment 165651
​

• Whoever, the Permanent Mandates Commission and the Mandatory agreed that:

View attachment 165654
​

The term "Palestine" means the "territory to which the Mandate applied;" which, in turn, means the Government of Palestine.

Being a citizen of the Government of Palestine during the Mandate era could also be phrase (and still be accurate) a Citizen of Palestine. But still the legal entity was NOT self-governing and so, not a state.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are jumping through Zionist hoops.

It doesn't matter. Even the citizens of non self governing territories have the right to sovereignty as the UN regularly reaffirms.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" does not mean you are sovereign. AND by the very meaning of sovereignty, you cannot be sovereign (supreme power) over nothing (if you were a sovereign power over nothing, then how would you know you were sovereign →).

And it would be a rare occurrence that a sovereign nation would be so benevolent as to relinquish territory to an empowered people just because the they demand their "right" to sovereignty.

Another thing! This insistence that the Allied Powers were wrong and they misreport the treaty to conform with you interpretation, they could simply write a novation (the substitution of a new treaty in place of an old treaty). But no legal authority actually says that Israel did not have this or that right.

(READING THE MIRROR REFLECTION)

The Arab Palestinians have dug themselves a very deep hole. They have claimed that they had the right to do anything (any and all means) to justify their actions. In the 45 years since the Palestinian attack on the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, the Palestinians have engaged in (but not limited to) Bombings, Kidnappings and Hostage taking, Armed Attacks and Assassinations, Arson and Firebombings, and Hijackings and Skyjackings. You do know that the Israeli Security Barrier was not always there. That barrier was 21st Century addition to the mix; after there were more than 2000 deaths associated directly to the Palestinians. And more than 3700 to date. This does not include the number of rocket and mortar events.

In the last 17 years of the Security Barrier's operation, many Hostile Arab Palestinians refer to it as the "Apartheid Wall;" symbol of segregation. Some have even compared it to the Berlin Wall and the mark of oppression. But we know that to be simply propaganda rhetoric. Israel has a much more ethnic diversity than the West Bank; and the barrier is to keep the Hostile Arab Palestinians from carrying out their threats. The Arab Palestinans conveniently for get that the Settlement issue was agreed to by the Palestinians and al the Palestinians have to do to stop settlements is to open good faith peace talks using the Oslo Dispute Resolution Process as the door opener.

Most Respectfully,
R

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You keep claiming this despite how many times you've been demonstrated to be wrong about this.

The Ottoman (Turkish) Empire did not cede the territory in question to anyone. Period. Full stop. Read the bloody treaty.

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.


Read that first sentence again: Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever

There is no ...."in favor of", or "cedes to". Turkey renounces all rights and title. Period. Full stop. So ENOUGH with the "Ottomans ceded the land to successor States'. She did not. She renounced them.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory

Article 30 says no such thing.

Article 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

This states that the residents of the territory will become citizens of the sovereign to whom the territory is transferred. It in no way indicates who that sovereign is. (That sovereign, however, IS mentioned by the Parties to whom the power of decision was transferred by this Treaty.)

and who would be the citizens of their respective territory.

Yes. This is correct. The Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory were to become nationals of the State (sovereign) to whom the territory was transferred. (And, in point of fact, this actually came to pass).

The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

Yes, you keep saying that, but have yet to provide the source of this in law. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. As a general concept, it is not disagreeable or even incorrect, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you tend to deliberately conflate/confuse/ignore who the legal 'citizens' were (according to those with the sovereign power to make those decisions). And you tend to assume that the citizens had no agency to choose for themselves their own sovereignty (self-determination).

All that, and nothing to prove that I am incorrect.

Oh you've got to be kidding me. Merely posting the words of the treaty proves you incorrect.

Still nothing, huh?

 

[Shusha]

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You keep claiming this despite how many times you've been demonstrated to be wrong about this.

The Ottoman (Turkish) Empire did not cede the territory in question to anyone. Period. Full stop. Read the bloody treaty.

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.


Read that first sentence again: Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever

There is no ...."in favor of", or "cedes to". Turkey renounces all rights and title. Period. Full stop. So ENOUGH with the "Ottomans ceded the land to successor States'. She did not. She renounced them.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory

Article 30 says no such thing.

Article 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

This states that the residents of the territory will become citizens of the sovereign to whom the territory is transferred. It in no way indicates who that sovereign is. (That sovereign, however, IS mentioned by the Parties to whom the power of decision was transferred by this Treaty.)

and who would be the citizens of their respective territory.

Yes. This is correct. The Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory were to become nationals of the State (sovereign) to whom the territory was transferred. (And, in point of fact, this actually came to pass).

The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

Yes, you keep saying that, but have yet to provide the source of this in law. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. As a general concept, it is not disagreeable or even incorrect, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you tend to deliberately conflate/confuse/ignore who the legal 'citizens' were (according to those with the sovereign power to make those decisions). And you tend to assume that the citizens had no agency to choose for themselves their own sovereignty (self-determination).

All that, and nothing to prove that I am incorrect.

Oh you've got to be kidding me. Merely posting the words of the treaty proves you incorrect.

Still nothing, huh?

What are you looking for? I agree with you that the Arab Palestinians have the right to sovereignty. They do not have sovereignty. But they certainly have the right to it.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Ottomans ceded the land to the respective successor states, not to the allied powers or the mandates.

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You keep claiming this despite how many times you've been demonstrated to be wrong about this.

The Ottoman (Turkish) Empire did not cede the territory in question to anyone. Period. Full stop. Read the bloody treaty.

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.


Read that first sentence again: Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever

There is no ...."in favor of", or "cedes to". Turkey renounces all rights and title. Period. Full stop. So ENOUGH with the "Ottomans ceded the land to successor States'. She did not. She renounced them.

Article 16 merely released the territory. Article 30 said who was going to get that territory

Article 30 says no such thing.

Article 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

This states that the residents of the territory will become citizens of the sovereign to whom the territory is transferred. It in no way indicates who that sovereign is. (That sovereign, however, IS mentioned by the Parties to whom the power of decision was transferred by this Treaty.)

and who would be the citizens of their respective territory.

Yes. This is correct. The Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory were to become nationals of the State (sovereign) to whom the territory was transferred. (And, in point of fact, this actually came to pass).

The citizens are the ones with the right to sovereignty.

Yes, you keep saying that, but have yet to provide the source of this in law. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. As a general concept, it is not disagreeable or even incorrect, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you tend to deliberately conflate/confuse/ignore who the legal 'citizens' were (according to those with the sovereign power to make those decisions). And you tend to assume that the citizens had no agency to choose for themselves their own sovereignty (self-determination).

All that, and nothing to prove that I am incorrect.

Oh you've got to be kidding me. Merely posting the words of the treaty proves you incorrect.

Still nothing, huh?

What are you looking for? I agree with you that the Arab Palestinians have the right to sovereignty. They do not have sovereignty. But they certainly have the right to it.

They have limited sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You keep claiming this despite how many times you've been demonstrated to be wrong about this.

The Ottoman (Turkish) Empire did not cede the territory in question to anyone. Period. Full stop. Read the bloody treaty.

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.


Read that first sentence again: Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever

There is no ...."in favor of", or "cedes to". Turkey renounces all rights and title. Period. Full stop. So ENOUGH with the "Ottomans ceded the land to successor States'. She did not. She renounced them.


Article 30 says no such thing.

Article 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

This states that the residents of the territory will become citizens of the sovereign to whom the territory is transferred. It in no way indicates who that sovereign is. (That sovereign, however, IS mentioned by the Parties to whom the power of decision was transferred by this Treaty.)

Yes. This is correct. The Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory were to become nationals of the State (sovereign) to whom the territory was transferred. (And, in point of fact, this actually came to pass).



Yes, you keep saying that, but have yet to provide the source of this in law. I don't disagree with you, necessarily. As a general concept, it is not disagreeable or even incorrect, in my opinion. HOWEVER, you tend to deliberately conflate/confuse/ignore who the legal 'citizens' were (according to those with the sovereign power to make those decisions). And you tend to assume that the citizens had no agency to choose for themselves their own sovereignty (self-determination).

All that, and nothing to prove that I am incorrect.

Oh you've got to be kidding me. Merely posting the words of the treaty proves you incorrect.

Still nothing, huh?

What are you looking for? I agree with you that the Arab Palestinians have the right to sovereignty. They do not have sovereignty. But they certainly have the right to it.

They have limited sovereignty.

In Area A and Gaza. Agreed.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[abi]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

You did not even respond to his point in that scripted wall of text you cut and pasted.

And you never answered as to why you post propaganda for a foreign regime?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, abi, et al,

This is one of those questions just to create hostility.

• Complex Question Fallacy •

plurium interrogationum
(also known as: many questions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, trick question, false question)​

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

You did not even respond to his point in that scripted wall of text you cut and pasted.

And you never answered as to why you post propaganda for a foreign regime?

(COMMENT)

I'm not foreign-inspired or employed by any foreign entity.

If my opinions resemble some other source, it's purely coincidental.

I attempt to support as many of my commentarires, as I can, to demonstrate that it is rooted in some official source or reputable outlet.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

When you ever....begin to understand the issues.....let us know.

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.
And they continue to reject it.

NOTHING to do with universal, inalienable rights.

The Arab leaders have rejected those rights to their people by wanting to take those exact rights from the Jewish People and Israel.

Arabs want Israel and Jews gone.

Where are the universal and inalienable rights of the Jews to not be endlessly attacked by the Arabs, and Iran.....and whoever else does not want Jews to have rights?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

When you ever....begin to understand the issues.....let us know.

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.
And they continue to reject it.

NOTHING to do with universal, inalienable rights.

The Arab leaders have rejected those rights to their people by wanting to take those exact rights from the Jewish People and Israel.

Arabs want Israel and Jews gone.

Where are the universal and inalienable rights of the Jews to not be endlessly attacked by the Arabs, and Iran.....and whoever else does not want Jews to have rights?

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.

Just another Israeli lie.

What else do you have?

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

When you ever....begin to understand the issues.....let us know.

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.
And they continue to reject it.

NOTHING to do with universal, inalienable rights.

The Arab leaders have rejected those rights to their people by wanting to take those exact rights from the Jewish People and Israel.

Arabs want Israel and Jews gone.

Where are the universal and inalienable rights of the Jews to not be endlessly attacked by the Arabs, and Iran.....and whoever else does not want Jews to have rights?

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.

Just another Israeli lie.

What else do you have?

Show me that the Arabs accepted the Partition of the Mandate of Palestine in 1937. Or in 1947.

Show me that they signed a peace treaty which would have created a Palestinian State in most of Judea and Samaria, when it was offered to them twice.

Israeli lies. Quack.

Tinmore BULLSHIT !!! Endless Bullshit.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: The events in Jerusalem
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I said that at all. I don't believe I mentioned an armed confrontation at all. This is an example of how you interpret things.

All Palestinian slime aside, you believe that those with guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right of sovereignty" is NOT a guarantee of sovereignty. You have a right to a home, but that does not mean I will allow you to take my home.

Sovereignty is a derivative of democracy and territorial integrity. Both f these derivatives are based (in part) on self-determination. If the population in Israel has a greater character and success then that of the Arab Palestinian, the Israeli will prevail.

If it takes the gun to protect the outcome of those actions necessary to maintain the sovereign integrity of Israel and it long-term safety, then expect nothing less. However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with. In their bid to take the remainder of the Mandate territory they refused to participate in programs designed to establish self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinians rejected the invitation by the Mandatory to participate three times by 1923. However, the Jewish took advantage of everything offered. By the time of 1948, Arab Palestinian arrogance reject (yet again) the invitation of the UN Palestine Commission to participate in preparation of the termination of the Mandate.

It is not that the Arab Palestinians were denied their sovereignty, but that they stubbornly threw-away ideal opportunities to keep them at the center of the game.

The Arab Palestinians would like to say, as you have said: "guns can deny and negate a people's right to sovereignty." But the paradigm shifted in the diplomacy. Superior diplomacy on the part of the Israelis, resulted in more of what they wanted. The inferior diplomacy resulted in the Arab Palestinians getting less of what they wanted. On May 15, 1948, the Regional Arabs League Nations decided to use the gun as the primary means of conflict resolution. We all know what the outcome was. The line of departure for the Arabs brought them right into the territory formerly under the Mandate. They took the gun and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(QUESTION)

Now going on for about the past seventy years, one might ask: "How is that working out for you?"

Whatever the logic, whatever the methodology, for whatever stated purposes -- good, bad or indifferent, Arab terrorist organizations come and go, but Israel remains.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, the Arab Palestinians never really had sovereignty to begin with.

So, how did the Palestinians become exempt from universal, inalienable rights?

Link?

When you ever....begin to understand the issues.....let us know.

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.
And they continue to reject it.

NOTHING to do with universal, inalienable rights.

The Arab leaders have rejected those rights to their people by wanting to take those exact rights from the Jewish People and Israel.

Arabs want Israel and Jews gone.

Where are the universal and inalienable rights of the Jews to not be endlessly attacked by the Arabs, and Iran.....and whoever else does not want Jews to have rights?

Arab rejection of a State has caused that State to never happen.

Just another Israeli lie.

What else do you have?

Show me that the Arabs accepted the Partition of the Mandate of Palestine in 1937. Or in 1947.

Show me that they signed a peace treaty which would have created a Palestinian State in most of Judea and Samaria, when it was offered to them twice.

Israeli lies. Quack.

Tinmore BULLSHIT !!! Endless Bullshit.

The Palestinian Arabs rejected a state in 2000 and 2008. Because they do not want a state, as much as they want Israel to be gone.