SherriMunnerlyn
VIP Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 12,201
- 265
- 83
google unispal, the reports are there, at least part of the thousands of them that have been written!
The Invention of the Land of Israel
- Thread starter Jos
- Start date
google unispal, the reports are there, at least part of the thousands of them that have been written!
RoccoR
Gold Member
SherriMunnerlyn, P F Tinmore, et al,
There are two sides to this coin.
This is a classic "human conflict" (war) versus "human rights" (peace/tranquility) argument. In a perfect world where all of humanity collectively advances at the same rate - there would be some balance between the two. But it is not a perfect world.
War is not something govern by human rights concepts; but is its antithesis. "War is the extension of politics by other means." (Major General Carl Von Clausewitz, Prussian Army) The Palestinian Conflict is simply a means by which the Palestinians are attempting to achieve their stated goals and objectives (political-religious ends - Hamas Covenant 1988 - The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988). And it is in that Hamas Covenant, that drives the doctrine.
A terrorist organization does not live in a vacuum. It must have support in order to maintain its momentum and capacity. In the case of Hamas, the general indigenous population came together as a collective and decided to provide that support to Hamas in order for it to achieve those stated objectives. In effect, pitting the national desires of the Palestinian population against the national security interests of the Israeli population (conflict - war).
In a prefect world, the principle of proportionality would (from a humanitarian standpoint) come into play (the Palestinians lose 2000 children, so the Israeli must lose 2000 children). But in conflict (war), that is absurd. War, from the combatant point of view, is about survivability. It is a maximum effort to seek-out and engage the enemy; not just to suppress enemy fire, but to silence their guns. When nations (the national population) goes to war, it is an "all in" affair. You bring the entire tool box to the war, and you entend to break the will of the opponent, or break their ability to continue to pursue further hostilities.
While it is unfortunate that the Palestinian is on the losing side in such an exchange, war is (by its very nature) an inhumane effort; a him or you situation. It includes the destruction of the capacity to continue, militarily, industrially, commercially, logistically, --- everything --- to include the national will. It is not a humanitarian exercise. While some may try to apply humanitarian rules (Geneva Convention, Law of Land Warfare, etc), there is a balance that must be struck to sustain such applications.
Remember, it take two (or more) combatants to open hostilities. If one quits the field, the struggle is over, and the healing process begins.
This is a short variation on a theme:
There is an argument to be made.
And all this ---- is inconsistent with the evidence in history.
Most Respectfully,
R
There are two sides to this coin.
(COMMENT)
This is a classic "human conflict" (war) versus "human rights" (peace/tranquility) argument. In a perfect world where all of humanity collectively advances at the same rate - there would be some balance between the two. But it is not a perfect world.
War is not something govern by human rights concepts; but is its antithesis. "War is the extension of politics by other means." (Major General Carl Von Clausewitz, Prussian Army) The Palestinian Conflict is simply a means by which the Palestinians are attempting to achieve their stated goals and objectives (political-religious ends - Hamas Covenant 1988 - The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988). And it is in that Hamas Covenant, that drives the doctrine.
A terrorist organization does not live in a vacuum. It must have support in order to maintain its momentum and capacity. In the case of Hamas, the general indigenous population came together as a collective and decided to provide that support to Hamas in order for it to achieve those stated objectives. In effect, pitting the national desires of the Palestinian population against the national security interests of the Israeli population (conflict - war).
In a prefect world, the principle of proportionality would (from a humanitarian standpoint) come into play (the Palestinians lose 2000 children, so the Israeli must lose 2000 children). But in conflict (war), that is absurd. War, from the combatant point of view, is about survivability. It is a maximum effort to seek-out and engage the enemy; not just to suppress enemy fire, but to silence their guns. When nations (the national population) goes to war, it is an "all in" affair. You bring the entire tool box to the war, and you entend to break the will of the opponent, or break their ability to continue to pursue further hostilities.
While it is unfortunate that the Palestinian is on the losing side in such an exchange, war is (by its very nature) an inhumane effort; a him or you situation. It includes the destruction of the capacity to continue, militarily, industrially, commercially, logistically, --- everything --- to include the national will. It is not a humanitarian exercise. While some may try to apply humanitarian rules (Geneva Convention, Law of Land Warfare, etc), there is a balance that must be struck to sustain such applications.
Remember, it take two (or more) combatants to open hostilities. If one quits the field, the struggle is over, and the healing process begins.
(COMMENT)
This is a short variation on a theme:
That the entire administration of the post-War Mandate Territory was a violation of the Arab right of self-determination. That Jewish immigrants forced their way in to Arab territory. That an immigrant non-Islamic and foreign people came to Palestine; (often described as originating from Europe) Jewish people the Palestinian did not want and would not tolerate. In essence, the Palestinian regarded the post-War immigration, for the establishment of a Jewish National Home, as a Jewish invasion of Palestine.
There is an argument to be made.
This theme presupposes that the post-War Allied Powers, in the administration of the former Ottoman territories, had no standing or authority over the region.
It presupposes that the Palestinians had an established country, prior to the mandate by the Allied Powers.
It presupposes that the surrounding Arab States (creations by the Allied Powers) had been granted independence, but that self-government should be withheld from Palestinian.
- Articles, 94-97 and 139 of the 1920 Treaty.
It presupposes that the Palestinians had an established country, prior to the mandate by the Allied Powers.
- No such country.
It presupposes that the surrounding Arab States (creations by the Allied Powers) had been granted independence, but that self-government should be withheld from Palestinian.
- GA Resolution 181(II)
And all this ---- is inconsistent with the evidence in history.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,418
- 4,882
- 1,815
See following quote.
What part of this is incorrect?
What was written in the LoN covenant was not what the Palestinians got. The covenant was not followed.
No it doesn't. That is a lie and irrelevant.
Resolution 181 is irrelevant. It was never implemented by the Security Council.
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Yeah, thousands of reports of abuses done by Israel!!! Meanwhile, there should be thousands and thousands of reports of abuses that go on against non Muslims in the Muslim world. Frau Sherri can help us find these reports or isn't she interested in the abuses which happen toward non Muslims since they are Infidels in her eyes. Maybe since Frau Sherri spends her days and nights running around the Internet looking for things to bash Israel and the Jews with, she just doesn't have the time to concern herself with the abuses committed against so many people in the world. After all, there are only 24 hours in the day, and Frau Sherri can't afford to spend a minute reading about these abuses.
There were stacks and stacks of pro hitler pamphlets in my town---
which included "reports" of all kinds of things-----left over from the
1930s and 1940s when I was a kid -----imagine----still there ----
scattered about circa 1960------all I saw were the remnants of
the VERY PROLIFIC WRITERS of that time. It never occured
to me that since there was SO MUCH OF IT----IT MUST HAVE HAD
GREAT TRUTH AND VALUE Way back then---there were stacks
and stacks of superman and batman comics----in the bedroom
of my brothers----and eventually stacks of MAD MAGAZINE
Maimonides' advice to the non isa-respecters ---be careful of that which
you write-----some people believe anything written------Josef Goebbels
----another isa-respecter beloved by sherri-----agreed
The topic is not abuses which go on around the world - enough derailment. We have other forum sections for abuses in other areas of the world or generic religion bashing.
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
As I said, the Palestinian perspective doesn't fit with history.
Nothing in Article 22 of the Covenant was not followed. The LoN did not think that some of the people were ready for independence. Hense, a Mandate was created.
You claimed to have a country in your own statement. You said
Of course there was no such country. Under the LoN Charter, you cannot extend a Mandate over a pre-existing country. What we call Palestine today, under Article 95 of the Treaty, was an undefined territory within the overall region.
The Treaty enacted Article 22 of the Covenant as the primary language. It is not Israel which was the first invention, but Palestine (within such boundaries as may be determined).
GA Res 181(II) did not require Security Council implementation (phrasing was merely boiler plate). It was not a binding resolution (never intended to be). It was an agreement that could be accepted or reject. Israel accepted, and the Arabs rejected.
273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nationshttp://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC
Application of Israel for admission
A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949
(SIDEBAR)
GA Resolution 181(II) was used to initially to establish the legitimacy of the State of Israel in the application process. But it is the Palestinian side that actually wants to resurrect UN GA 181(II) as an active document. The Palestinians actually accept the legitimacy of the Resolution.
It is the Israeli side that wants the Resolution declared "null and void;" which the Palestinians claim is illegal. It is to the Israeli advantage because it also cancels the recognition of Israeli borders pre-1967; de facto annexation by defualt. The Israel side wants UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 to be the primary guides out of Camp David and Oslo.
Most Respectfully,
R
PS: Paul, sometimes you confuse me. By contesting GA Res 181(II), you are actually arguing for the Israeli side.
As I said, the Palestinian perspective doesn't fit with history.
(COMMENT)
Nothing in Article 22 of the Covenant was not followed. The LoN did not think that some of the people were ready for independence. Hense, a Mandate was created.
(COMMENT)
You claimed to have a country in your own statement. You said
Of course there was no such country. Under the LoN Charter, you cannot extend a Mandate over a pre-existing country. What we call Palestine today, under Article 95 of the Treaty, was an undefined territory within the overall region.
Article 95 said:
The Treaty enacted Article 22 of the Covenant as the primary language. It is not Israel which was the first invention, but Palestine (within such boundaries as may be determined).
(COMMENT)
GA Res 181(II) did not require Security Council implementation (phrasing was merely boiler plate). It was not a binding resolution (never intended to be). It was an agreement that could be accepted or reject. Israel accepted, and the Arabs rejected.
273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nationshttp://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC
Application of Israel for admission
A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949
UN GA A/AC.24/SR.45 5 May 1949 said:
273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations said:
(SIDEBAR)
GA Resolution 181(II) was used to initially to establish the legitimacy of the State of Israel in the application process. But it is the Palestinian side that actually wants to resurrect UN GA 181(II) as an active document. The Palestinians actually accept the legitimacy of the Resolution.
03/25/1999 A/53/879S/1999/334 Jerusalem - Letter from Palestine said:
It is the Israeli side that wants the Resolution declared "null and void;" which the Palestinians claim is illegal. It is to the Israeli advantage because it also cancels the recognition of Israeli borders pre-1967; de facto annexation by defualt. The Israel side wants UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 to be the primary guides out of Camp David and Oslo.
Most Respectfully,
R
PS: Paul, sometimes you confuse me. By contesting GA Res 181(II), you are actually arguing for the Israeli side.
Last edited:
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,418
- 4,882
- 1,815
League of Nations
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.
Who are the “people” they are talking about if not the Palestinians?
Using the term " not yet able to stand by themselves" suggests that standing by themselves is the expected outcome of the assistance rendered by the mandate.
"the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation" says that the people are the primary concern of the mandate.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
Here again it is the people who are assisted and that assistance should be entrusted to advanced nations who work on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
This speaks for itself, however, it mentions that the mandatory is to render administrative advice and assistance until the communities become independent nations. This is the stated purpose of the mandatory.
The mandatory does not own any land, have any borders, or hold any sovereignty.
Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
Note that they mention the people, communities, natives, and indigenous. There is no mention of foreigners. There is no mention of race, religion, or ethnic background.
It is plain to see that Britain violated this charter and the rights of the Palestinian people. Violating a people's rights does not negate those rights.
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.
Who are the “people” they are talking about if not the Palestinians?
Using the term " not yet able to stand by themselves" suggests that standing by themselves is the expected outcome of the assistance rendered by the mandate.
"the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation" says that the people are the primary concern of the mandate.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
Here again it is the people who are assisted and that assistance should be entrusted to advanced nations who work on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
This speaks for itself, however, it mentions that the mandatory is to render administrative advice and assistance until the communities become independent nations. This is the stated purpose of the mandatory.
The mandatory does not own any land, have any borders, or hold any sovereignty.
Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
Note that they mention the people, communities, natives, and indigenous. There is no mention of foreigners. There is no mention of race, religion, or ethnic background.
It is plain to see that Britain violated this charter and the rights of the Palestinian people. Violating a people's rights does not negate those rights.
Unfortunately, yes it does .
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,418
- 4,882
- 1,815
Explain?
Well, what specific rights are you talking about ?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,418
- 4,882
- 1,815
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore; toastman; et al,
An opposing view.
There is a grave unspoken set of terms missing here. When Article 22 speaks, it was not just speaking about the undefined Palestine. It was speaking about several tribal areas that were relinquished or placed under Mandate or Protection. While there were several Mandatories appointed in those years, four Empires having fell in rapid succession, the UK was just one such Mandatory with a lot on its plate.
This does not include the French Mandates and Protectors [examples: Lebanon (Independence: 22 November 1943) and Syria (Independence: 17 April 1946) from LoN French administration)].
Yes, their can be provisional recognition. But it is all too clear that in much of the Middle East, independence was granted too soon to many of the countries; they simply were not ready to stand alone. No region in the world has been subject to as much turmoil for as long a period, in a continuous state of hostility since the close of WWII.
But to say that the British did not try or made no effort, flys in the face of reality. Just because the undefined Palestinians did not get everything they wanted, is not evidence that the UK didn't try to exercise due diligence. (Contrary to popular belief, there is more to the world and the region than just the undefined Palestinian.) At some point the people called Palestinians have to look at themselves in the mirror and give an honest assessment of their conduct and responsibilities in what has transpired; and leave their "self victimization baggage" at home.
For more than six decades, what we call the Palestinian People have mimicked the symptoms of cultural anxiety - constantly demanding the unreasonable, depression and tantrums on a regional scale, conduct disorder through terrorism and open warfare, and learning disabilities that make good faith mediation and negotiations almost impossible. It is a culture, for which the world has come to understand, that is beyond normal behaviors. Anytime you have an entire culture that believes they have an inalienable right to conduct open terrorism, and warfare on their neighbors -- to write doctrine (like the Hamas Charter) that religiously supports that premise, you have a counterproductive culture; a detriment to humanity.
What we call the Palestinian People today, is a culture that acts like disruptive children. One takes a swing at another - and gets a bloody nose --- then immediately runs to the media, the UN, Humanitarian NGOs and cry foul; blaming everyone but themselves. They throw little temper tantrums because they look in every direction and see the others have something they don't have (a nation); yet they threw that opportunity away (because it wasn't good enough for them). They want the whole pie and don't want to share. And they pass that behavior down from generation to generation.
What do you do with such a culture? Independence! WOW... I'm not sure they would be satisfied with that. I'm not sure they are really ready to stand alone.
Most Respectfully,
R
An opposing view.
(COMMENT)
There is a grave unspoken set of terms missing here. When Article 22 speaks, it was not just speaking about the undefined Palestine. It was speaking about several tribal areas that were relinquished or placed under Mandate or Protection. While there were several Mandatories appointed in those years, four Empires having fell in rapid succession, the UK was just one such Mandatory with a lot on its plate.
- BAHRAIN: Independence: 15 August 1971 from the UK protectorate status
- EGYPT: Independence: 28 February 1922 from UK protectorate status;
- IRAQ: Independence: 3 October 1932 from LoN British administration;
- JORDAN: Independence: 25 May 1946 from LoN British administration;
- KUWAIT: Independence: 19 June 1961 from the UK protectorate status;
- QATAR: Independence: 3 September 1971 from the UK protectorate status;
- SUDAN: Independent 1 January 1956 from Egypt and the UK protectorate status;
- SOUTH YEMEN: Independent on 30 November 1967 from the UK protectorate status;
This does not include the French Mandates and Protectors [examples: Lebanon (Independence: 22 November 1943) and Syria (Independence: 17 April 1946) from LoN French administration)].
Yes, their can be provisional recognition. But it is all too clear that in much of the Middle East, independence was granted too soon to many of the countries; they simply were not ready to stand alone. No region in the world has been subject to as much turmoil for as long a period, in a continuous state of hostility since the close of WWII.
But to say that the British did not try or made no effort, flys in the face of reality. Just because the undefined Palestinians did not get everything they wanted, is not evidence that the UK didn't try to exercise due diligence. (Contrary to popular belief, there is more to the world and the region than just the undefined Palestinian.) At some point the people called Palestinians have to look at themselves in the mirror and give an honest assessment of their conduct and responsibilities in what has transpired; and leave their "self victimization baggage" at home.
For more than six decades, what we call the Palestinian People have mimicked the symptoms of cultural anxiety - constantly demanding the unreasonable, depression and tantrums on a regional scale, conduct disorder through terrorism and open warfare, and learning disabilities that make good faith mediation and negotiations almost impossible. It is a culture, for which the world has come to understand, that is beyond normal behaviors. Anytime you have an entire culture that believes they have an inalienable right to conduct open terrorism, and warfare on their neighbors -- to write doctrine (like the Hamas Charter) that religiously supports that premise, you have a counterproductive culture; a detriment to humanity.
What we call the Palestinian People today, is a culture that acts like disruptive children. One takes a swing at another - and gets a bloody nose --- then immediately runs to the media, the UN, Humanitarian NGOs and cry foul; blaming everyone but themselves. They throw little temper tantrums because they look in every direction and see the others have something they don't have (a nation); yet they threw that opportunity away (because it wasn't good enough for them). They want the whole pie and don't want to share. And they pass that behavior down from generation to generation.
What do you do with such a culture? Independence! WOW... I'm not sure they would be satisfied with that. I'm not sure they are really ready to stand alone.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Roudy
Diamond Member
- Mar 16, 2012
- 63,225
- 20,393
- 2,250
Funny part is Muslims had no problems with 99% of the British and French mandate divisions which ended up in Muslim hands. It seems THE ONLY UNACCEPTABLE DIVISION was the one that was given to the Jews, in the ancient homeland of their ancestors, aka Israel.
In other words, anybody who thinks that this conflict is not about Islamic intolerance and hatred of THE OTHER, is kidding themselves.
tinydancer
Diamond Member
sealadaigh
Rookie
- Banned
- #157
i think it is occasionally appropriate as an analogy but name calling...inappropriate. the funny thing is the way the use of the term has morphed. it was generally gentile posters who used the term and directed it towards zionists. jewish posters objected and rarely used it. now it has changed where very few gentile posters use the term but a lot of jewish posters use it and direct it towards those who seek justice for the palestinians.
sorta weird if you ask me. one woman asked me to stop using it, citing godwin's law. i did, but now she seems to use it...not frequently but noticeably.
tinydancer
Diamond Member
Well now that Tamerlane has come up with this moron bombing the marathon; are we supposed to now give back all he conquered?
And he was one evil son of a *****. He was sort of a equal opportunity killer. He did in Sunnis and Shias.
Honest question to make Palestine a state why don't you just do it? You have the land. Make yourself a State .
If you cared about your people make yourself a state with what you have and protect them and trade with other nations. Get trade going. Rock it.
And he was one evil son of a *****. He was sort of a equal opportunity killer. He did in Sunnis and Shias.
Honest question to make Palestine a state why don't you just do it? You have the land. Make yourself a State .
If you cared about your people make yourself a state with what you have and protect them and trade with other nations. Get trade going. Rock it.
Last edited:
tinydancer
Diamond Member
tinydancer
Diamond Member
This is why I do not come in here as much as I love both sides. I don't understand why this can't be worked out.
Come on.
It's a land dispute. Give er. Get it done. Make the people in both lands happy. There's a joe six pack mohammed out there who's just begging to bring in an olive crop. That's all the dude wants. Meanwhile back at the ranch, crazies are remote controlling retarded children to the Israeli border to blow them up.
I mean come on. Why can't a line just be drawn and then both sides could love life. I don't get this at all.
Come on.
It's a land dispute. Give er. Get it done. Make the people in both lands happy. There's a joe six pack mohammed out there who's just begging to bring in an olive crop. That's all the dude wants. Meanwhile back at the ranch, crazies are remote controlling retarded children to the Israeli border to blow them up.
I mean come on. Why can't a line just be drawn and then both sides could love life. I don't get this at all.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Newsom Allocates $900 Million For Black Bear Porta-Potties- Started by Votto
- Replies: 0
-
-
If you are going to be the leader of a women's rights commission; you have to be a real woman.- Started by TroglocratsRdumb
- Replies: 0
-
-
