The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Shusha]

It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.

Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point. Yugoslavia was a State.

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.

Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity. That's the international standard.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its “right to exist.” Is- rael’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement . . . There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its “right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.

—Abba Eban2

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9

How many other countries bang on about their right to exist like they are trying to sell something?

How many countries are assailed by hundreds of millions of hateful subhumans claiming they have no such right?

 

[Shusha]

No other actual existing State's right to exist is ever questioned.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Dogmaphobe
How many countries are assailed by hundreds of millions of hateful subhumans claiming they have no such right?

South Africa under Apartheid...

And ironically american Jews were the first ones in the West to denounce the supremacist state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.

Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point. Yugoslavia was a State.

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.

Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity. That's the international standard.

Link?

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.

How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.

You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...

But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...

Blame THEM -- not Jews....

Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?

Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.

After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission.. Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..

But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable... Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits... LOL...

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.

This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis.. Where's your blame on Jordan?

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West Bank and Sinai to those countries.. And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank, rather than continue the attacks from Palestinians...

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...

 

[flacaltenn]

So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.

Where is that legal?

Link?

Every word of that is wrong.

First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.

Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty. The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward. In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth. It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel. With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.

Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence. In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988. Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it. In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week. They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.

And to answer your question about legality: the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory. In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity. Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc. Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment. Why is that, do you think?

Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.

Yes they did. They moved in under the gun of the British military.

Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others. The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.

When you're under occupation by the BRITISH --- you follow their rules. There's a reason Britain was assigned that job to administer that part of the Ottoman Empire.. "The gun of the British military" seems to imply they had rightful title to the land and NOT the Palestinians or the Jews.. Their disposition of land took into account BOTH those interests when they left...

"The gun of the British military" seems to imply they had rightful title to the land and NOT the Palestinians or the Jews..

Not so. The Mandates had a non annexation policy. The land was ceded to the respective new states.

A non-annexation policy means that Britain could NOT RETAIN portions.. Not that the winning team of France Russia and England couldn't dole out land and set national boundaries... Britain did that to dissuade Russia from simply retaining their 1/3 of the "conquered" Mid East.... France made entire colonies out of their holdings that turned into nation states.. And England stayed too long in Egypt and got their asses booted out... But the BOUNDARIES of all these modern Arab states WERE SET by the victors.. Not just in the Holy Land...

 

[rylah]

Actually I promote a wide regional cooperation, and open dialogue with honest and respectful leaders of the Muslim community.

While yours posts expressed, division, prolong palestine issue, scared of from your own existence. Are you people psycho? Why don't you follow the UN resolution and solved the issue? Or if scared of from the lion will come and eat you all if this the case then one day it will come and its called paranoid-ism.

What posts?
I'm not sure You understand the words You use, what makes You think that UN resolutions are obligatory, does You country follow them?

Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.

Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.

Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?

Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.

International law is not a popular vote,
a contract between sovereign nations is it?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.

You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...

But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...

Blame THEM -- not Jews....

Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?

Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.

After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission.. Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..

But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable... Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits... LOL...

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.

This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis.. Where's your blame on Jordan?

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries.. And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...

Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.

 

[rylah]

You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...

But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...

Blame THEM -- not Jews....

Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?

Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.

After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission.. Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..

But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable... Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits... LOL...

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.

This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis.. Where's your blame on Jordan?

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries.. And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...

Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.

There's land belonging to the Jewish nation,
one such example is purchase by the charitable baron, consists of 100,000 dun. of land in Huran.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.

Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point. Yugoslavia was a State.

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.

Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity. That's the international standard.

Link?

Who was the President of Palestine in 1946?

 

[Shusha]

It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.

Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point. Yugoslavia was a State.

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.

Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity. That's the international standard.

Link?

Um. You want a link to what, exactly? All the countries in the world which were partitioned to permit self-determination at the expense of territorial integrity?

Ottoman Empire
Yugoslavia
Czechoslovakia
Soviet Union
India
Sudan
Korea
Palestine

That help? Territorial integrity is not an impediment to self-determination. Self-determination is the norm, at the expense of territorial integrity. Your own precious "Palestine" proves the rule.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.

Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point. Yugoslavia was a State.

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.

Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity. That's the international standard.

Link?

Um. You want a link to what, exactly? All the countries in the world which were partitioned to permit self-determination at the expense of territorial integrity?

Ottoman Empire
Yugoslavia
Czechoslovakia
Soviet Union
India
Sudan
Korea
Palestine

That help? Territorial integrity is not an impediment to self-determination. Self-determination is the norm, at the expense of territorial integrity. Your own precious "Palestine" proves the rule.

I would also kind of put Cyprus on that list, even though most of the world doesn't recognize the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.

 

[Shusha]

It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.

Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point. Yugoslavia was a State.

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.

Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity. That's the international standard.

Link?

Um. You want a link to what, exactly? All the countries in the world which were partitioned to permit self-determination at the expense of territorial integrity?

Ottoman Empire
Yugoslavia
Czechoslovakia
Soviet Union
India
Sudan
Korea
Palestine

That help? Territorial integrity is not an impediment to self-determination. Self-determination is the norm, at the expense of territorial integrity. Your own precious "Palestine" proves the rule.

I would also kind of put Cyprus on that list, even though most of the world doesn't recognize the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.

There are a bunch of African countries which could probably be added as well. And places like East Timor declaring independence from Indonesia and Portugal. There are also a bunch of potentials: Tibet, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.

I'm hard pressed, actually, to think of a national liberation movement specifically prevented from self-determination because of territorial integrity.

They are legally two incompatible, mutually exclusive legal concepts but the NORM is for self-determination to take precedence.

 

[flacaltenn]

It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.

Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point. Yugoslavia was a State.

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.

Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity. That's the international standard.

Link?

Um. You want a link to what, exactly? All the countries in the world which were partitioned to permit self-determination at the expense of territorial integrity?

Ottoman Empire
Yugoslavia
Czechoslovakia
Soviet Union
India
Sudan
Korea
Palestine

That help? Territorial integrity is not an impediment to self-determination. Self-determination is the norm, at the expense of territorial integrity. Your own precious "Palestine" proves the rule.

I would also kind of put Cyprus on that list, even though most of the world doesn't recognize the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.

There are a bunch of African countries which could probably be added as well. And places like East Timor declaring independence from Indonesia and Portugal. There are also a bunch of potentials: Tibet, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.

I'm hard pressed, actually, to think of a national liberation movement specifically prevented from self-determination because of territorial integrity.

They are legally two incompatible, mutually exclusive legal concepts but the NORM is for self-determination to take precedence.

Nation state status is also never JUST GIVEN to an indigenous people with any real benefits of sovereignty.. SURE -- there are sovereign American Indian nations.. But all trade with them comes thru the US customs. Any laws or treaties they might make are inferior to the laws of the country that recognized their status.. They have to BEG for waivers to hunt seal and whales and polar bears -- for instance.

So in 1948, when the partition occurred, the Zionists HAD a nation state prepared and ready to go.. The Palestinians did not... So they ended up being "pseudo-citizens" of Trans-Jordan... And JORDAN treated them as "an indigenous people" -- not as either a case of self-determination nor territorial integrity...

That's been the "Palestinian problem" from ancient times to today....

You don't grant EITHER of things to a people who can not form a nation that fits in with the governmental structure of the REST of the world... You just don't hand "territorial integrity" to a people who will fight amongst themselves for CONTROL of that land...

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's backup here, and understand who the players are:

✪ The Principal (or Major- or Entente) Allied Powers in The Great War (WWI) were:

• Great Britain (and the British Empire),
• France,
• Russia
• Japan
• Italy
​

✪ The Allied Powers in The Great War (WWI) included:

• Armenia,
  
• Belgium,
  
• Greece,
• Hejaz,
  
• Poland,
  
• Portugal,
  
• Romania,
  
• Serb-Croat-Slovene,
  
• Czechoslovakia.

✪ The United States was "technically speaking" an "Associate Power."​

[LINK]
View attachment 251925


• Allied powers •
International Alliance
Written By:
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
​

It was not British land. The Mandates were trustees.

(COMMENT)

Who the players are is a very important distinction. The "Mandate for Palestine" starts with the opening phrase:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed,"​

Let there be no mistake... The Mandate represented an agreement between the "PRINCIPAL" Allied Powers. It was the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers that set the conditions as to the appearance of the Mandate and the Mandatories.

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

✪ The responsibility for implementing the Balfour Declaration was a decision by the Principal Allied Powers.​

It was not "the territory," it was Palestine. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

Wrong again:

In 1920 (during the San Remo Convention) → up and until August 1922 [during the final formulation of the terms submitted to the Council of the League of Nations (LoN)] such boundaries had not yet been fixed.

Under the description, pursuant to the Palestine Order in Council (August 1922) → "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

AND: as cited in the Preamble: And whereas, by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine.

◈ Great Britain had the power and jurisdiction within "Palestine" (no matter what you want to call it).

Not so. The Mandates had a non annexation policy. The land was ceded to the respective new states.

(COMMENT)

Wrong again. The word "Annex" or "Annexation" was not used even once in the entirety of the Mandate.

Don't confuse Article 5 with a prohibition relative to Annexation. What it says (as agreed to by the Principal Allied Powers) that NO "territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power."

This is a circular order, in which the Principal Allied Power is telling itself, a Principal Allied Power, there is a limit. Remembering that the "Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

What limits there are in the Mandate and in the Orders in Council are in place at the discretion of the Principal Allied Powers and no other. And what is put in place by the Principal Allied Powers, can be lifted by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements ( the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.

 

[Rehmani]

Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?

Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.

After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission.. Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..

But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable... Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits... LOL...

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.

This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis.. Where's your blame on Jordan?

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries.. And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...

Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.

There's land belonging to the Jewish nation,
one such example is purchase by the charitable baron, consists of 100,000 dun. of land in Huran.

But its not mean all people around the world invade USA or Canada or Europe because they have bought land as Jew did to people of Holly Land.

 

[Rehmani]

You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...

But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...

Blame THEM -- not Jews....

Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?

Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.

After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission.. Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..

But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable... Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits... LOL...

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.

This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis.. Where's your blame on Jordan?

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries.. And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...

Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.

But its not make Israel Legitimate.

 

[Rehmani]

While yours posts expressed, division, prolong palestine issue, scared of from your own existence. Are you people psycho? Why don't you follow the UN resolution and solved the issue? Or if scared of from the lion will come and eat you all if this the case then one day it will come and its called paranoid-ism.

What posts?
I'm not sure You understand the words You use, what makes You think that UN resolutions are obligatory, does You country follow them?

Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.

Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.

Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?

Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.

International law is not a popular vote,
a contract between sovereign nations is it?

But israel is not a legitimate nation.
Then what is a popular vote?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?

Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.

After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission.. Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..

But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable... Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits... LOL...

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.

This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis.. Where's your blame on Jordan?

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries.. And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...

Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.

But its not make Israel Legitimate.

I disagree and I find you a terrible human being for not answering my question. One question. Sad really.