The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are starting with the wrong idea.

The Mandate version of a Jewish national home was for Palestinians to have Palestinian citizenship and for immigrant Jews to obtain Palestinian citizenship.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate version was for the people in the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be brought under the same political umbrella through a common citizenship for administrative purposes.

The principle objective (made public) of the Mandate for Palestine was the establishment of an independent and autonomous territory capable of handling an influx of Jews (from around the world), escaping persecution, and accept them; protecting them from further persecution under the color of law → bringing them closer to the center of their most cherished religious venue national point of origin (first Jewish Nation).

Then there wound be a single shared state. Britain fucked that up big time and left their mess for others to clean up. Of course that never happened.

(COMMENT)

From the very beginning of the Mandate (1920 San Remo Conference), the "single shared state" concept was not considered. The Allied Powers knew that the territory to which the Mandate applied was going to be partitioned at least once with the creation of an autonomous Transjordan. The "single state idea" was never a political requirement or even a desire.

The concept was to create an environment that would allow for the sovereign protection of the Jewish People from the abuses of the non-Jewish people; a place that would protect them from political institutions that would target them non-Jewish zealots and religious fanatics → and protect the Jews from those that would seek to strip the Jews of their accumulated wealth and accomplishments.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the Mandate that had already left. The Mandate created nothing. It was unconnected from the creation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

All (ever single one) of the established self-governing institution established through self-determination is by definition → a unilateral move. If it was a move instigated and established by an external political force, then it would not be → "by "self"-determination. The "Mandate" was a vehicle under which many outcomes were possible.

The creation of a sovereignty called "Israel" was an action by the "National Council for the Jewish State." And again you use the very wrong wording again (a slight propaganda twist). The action was NOT a "creation of Israel" → but rather → a "reconstituting their national home" as seen by the Allied Powers (in whatever final form that may take). Sometimes I think the Arab Palestinian gets that wrong on purpose.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are starting with the wrong idea.

The Mandate version of a Jewish national home was for Palestinians to have Palestinian citizenship and for immigrant Jews to obtain Palestinian citizenship.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate version was for the people in the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be brought under the same political umbrella through a common citizenship for administrative purposes.

The principle objective (made public) of the Mandate for Palestine was the establishment of an independent and autonomous territory capable of handling an influx of Jews (from around the world), escaping persecution, and accept them; protecting them from further persecution under the color of law → bringing them closer to the center of their most cherished religious venue national point of origin (first Jewish Nation).

Then there wound be a single shared state. Britain fucked that up big time and left their mess for others to clean up. Of course that never happened.

(COMMENT)

From the very beginning of the Mandate (1920 San Remo Conference), the "single shared state" concept was not considered. The Allied Powers knew that the territory to which the Mandate applied was going to be partitioned at least once with the creation of an autonomous Transjordan. The "single state idea" was never a political requirement or even a desire.

The concept was to create an environment that would allow for the sovereign protection of the Jewish People from the abuses of the non-Jewish people; a place that would protect them from political institutions that would target them non-Jewish zealots and religious fanatics → and protect the Jews from those that would seek to strip the Jews of their accumulated wealth and accomplishments.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the Mandate that had already left. The Mandate created nothing. It was unconnected from the creation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

All (ever single one) of the established self-governing institution established through self-determination is by definition → a unilateral move. If it was a move instigated and established by an external political force, then it would not be → "by "self"-determination. The "Mandate" was a vehicle under which many outcomes were possible.

The creation of a sovereignty called "Israel" was an action by the "National Council for the Jewish State." And again you use the very wrong wording again (a slight propaganda twist). The action was NOT a "creation of Israel" → but rather → a "reconstituting their national home" as seen by the Allied Powers (in whatever final form that may take). Sometimes I think the Arab Palestinian gets that wrong on purpose.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a problem with the "reconstituting their national home." When Palestine (Naming and defining the territory for the existing people.) was created by post war treaties, there were native Jews living in that territory. These Jews, along with the other inhabitants of the land, automatically became citizens of Palestine. These Jews, and the other citizens of Palestine, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it. All of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence were foreign colonial settlers. There was not a native among them.

 

[Hollie]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are starting with the wrong idea.

The Mandate version of a Jewish national home was for Palestinians to have Palestinian citizenship and for immigrant Jews to obtain Palestinian citizenship.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate version was for the people in the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be brought under the same political umbrella through a common citizenship for administrative purposes.

The principle objective (made public) of the Mandate for Palestine was the establishment of an independent and autonomous territory capable of handling an influx of Jews (from around the world), escaping persecution, and accept them; protecting them from further persecution under the color of law → bringing them closer to the center of their most cherished religious venue national point of origin (first Jewish Nation).

Then there wound be a single shared state. Britain fucked that up big time and left their mess for others to clean up. Of course that never happened.

(COMMENT)

From the very beginning of the Mandate (1920 San Remo Conference), the "single shared state" concept was not considered. The Allied Powers knew that the territory to which the Mandate applied was going to be partitioned at least once with the creation of an autonomous Transjordan. The "single state idea" was never a political requirement or even a desire.

The concept was to create an environment that would allow for the sovereign protection of the Jewish People from the abuses of the non-Jewish people; a place that would protect them from political institutions that would target them non-Jewish zealots and religious fanatics → and protect the Jews from those that would seek to strip the Jews of their accumulated wealth and accomplishments.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that had nothing to do with the Mandate that had already left. The Mandate created nothing. It was unconnected from the creation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

All (ever single one) of the established self-governing institution established through self-determination is by definition → a unilateral move. If it was a move instigated and established by an external political force, then it would not be → "by "self"-determination. The "Mandate" was a vehicle under which many outcomes were possible.

The creation of a sovereignty called "Israel" was an action by the "National Council for the Jewish State." And again you use the very wrong wording again (a slight propaganda twist). The action was NOT a "creation of Israel" → but rather → a "reconstituting their national home" as seen by the Allied Powers (in whatever final form that may take). Sometimes I think the Arab Palestinian gets that wrong on purpose.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a problem with the "reconstituting their national home." When Palestine (Naming and defining the territory for the existing people.) was created by post war treaties, there were native Jews living in that territory. These Jews, along with the other inhabitants of the land, automatically became citizens of Palestine. These Jews, and the other citizens of Palestine, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it. All of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence were foreign colonial settlers. There was not a native among them.

So, it seems we’re back to you attempting to make the absurd claim, just in a more subtle way, that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pally’land”..

Such is the alternate reality defined by the Islamist mindset.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy with the distinctive features whereby the Arab Palestinian whining is a tool on the manipulation in the projection of cries that invoke emotions in order to win an argument. The purpose of action (used for the last half-century) is the application of "pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies). In fact, one can hardly draw a name to any "successful" action by the Arab Palestinians that did not use this strategy. This application ["pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies)] is so successful that it has been effective in legitimizing the hijacking of aircraft, the Olympic Massacre, the suicide bombing, the machinegunning of innocent, unarmed men, women and children, the use of indiscriminate fire of rocket and mortars on to civilian targets, the intentional Location of launch sites from Densely Populated Areas, the intentional failure from removing civilians the Vicinity of legitimate military targets, and utilizing the presence of a civilian to provoke confrontation render certain points, areas or military forces immune from Israeli counter-fire.

THIS territorial argument uses this very same strategy, augmented by misinformation, to achieve similar results.

There is a problem with the "reconstituting their national home." When Palestine (Naming and defining the territory for the existing people.) was created by post war treaties, there were native Jews living in that territory. These Jews, along with the other inhabitants of the land, automatically became citizens of Palestine. These Jews, and the other citizens of Palestine, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it. All of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence were foreign colonial settlers. There was not a native among them.

(CORRECTING THE ALLEGATION)

✪ "Palestine" was NOT defined or named for the "existing people" (the indigenous people); but rather to identify the Civil Administration under which the Mandate would be executed.

✪ "Palestine" was not created by post-war treaties.

✪ "Palestine" (The Administration of Palestine) enacted a nationality law; wherein the "habitual residence" and the Jews (residents and immigrants) acquired citizenship. Everyone on an equal footing. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples; the "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" would not be spelled-out until 2007 (nearly a century later).

✪ On the argument that "that creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it." This is what is called the frozen "Snapshot in Time." Common Sense tells us that attitudes change over time.

(COMMENT)

It goes without saying that the Jewish did not have a hive mentality at the turn of the Twentieth Century, at the time of the Mandate termination, at the turn of the 21st Century and even today. Whether or not Jewish Statehood was a foreign concept or not, it happened.

For the development of civilization, all progressive and successful cultures look forward in time; and not to the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy with the distinctive features whereby the Arab Palestinian whining is a tool on the manipulation in the projection of cries that invoke emotions in order to win an argument. The purpose of action (used for the last half-century) is the application of "pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies). In fact, one can hardly draw a name to any "successful" action by the Arab Palestinians that did not use this strategy. This application ["pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies)] is so successful that it has been effective in legitimizing the hijacking of aircraft, the Olympic Massacre, the suicide bombing, the machinegunning of innocent, unarmed men, women and children, the use of indiscriminate fire of rocket and mortars on to civilian targets, the intentional Location of launch sites from Densely Populated Areas, the intentional failure from removing civilians the Vicinity of legitimate military targets, and utilizing the presence of a civilian to provoke confrontation render certain points, areas or military forces immune from Israeli counter-fire.

THIS territorial argument uses this very same strategy, augmented by misinformation, to achieve similar results.

There is a problem with the "reconstituting their national home." When Palestine (Naming and defining the territory for the existing people.) was created by post war treaties, there were native Jews living in that territory. These Jews, along with the other inhabitants of the land, automatically became citizens of Palestine. These Jews, and the other citizens of Palestine, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it. All of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence were foreign colonial settlers. There was not a native among them.

(CORRECTING THE ALLEGATION)

✪ "Palestine" was NOT defined or named for the "existing people" (the indigenous people); but rather to identify the Civil Administration under which the Mandate would be executed.

✪ "Palestine" was not created by post-war treaties.

✪ "Palestine" (The Administration of Palestine) enacted a nationality law; wherein the "habitual residence" and the Jews (residents and immigrants) acquired citizenship. Everyone on an equal footing. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples; the "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" would not be spelled-out until 2007 (nearly a century later).

✪ On the argument that "that creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it." This is what is called the frozen "Snapshot in Time." Common Sense tells us that attitudes change over time.

(COMMENT)

It goes without saying that the Jewish did not have a hive mentality at the turn of the Twentieth Century, at the time of the Mandate termination, at the turn of the 21st Century and even today. Whether or not Jewish Statehood was a foreign concept or not, it happened.

For the development of civilization, all progressive and successful cultures look forward in time; and not to the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy

What did I say that was incorrect?

 

[rylah]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy with the distinctive features whereby the Arab Palestinian whining is a tool on the manipulation in the projection of cries that invoke emotions in order to win an argument. The purpose of action (used for the last half-century) is the application of "pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies). In fact, one can hardly draw a name to any "successful" action by the Arab Palestinians that did not use this strategy. This application ["pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies)] is so successful that it has been effective in legitimizing the hijacking of aircraft, the Olympic Massacre, the suicide bombing, the machinegunning of innocent, unarmed men, women and children, the use of indiscriminate fire of rocket and mortars on to civilian targets, the intentional Location of launch sites from Densely Populated Areas, the intentional failure from removing civilians the Vicinity of legitimate military targets, and utilizing the presence of a civilian to provoke confrontation render certain points, areas or military forces immune from Israeli counter-fire.

THIS territorial argument uses this very same strategy, augmented by misinformation, to achieve similar results.

There is a problem with the "reconstituting their national home." When Palestine (Naming and defining the territory for the existing people.) was created by post war treaties, there were native Jews living in that territory. These Jews, along with the other inhabitants of the land, automatically became citizens of Palestine. These Jews, and the other citizens of Palestine, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it. All of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence were foreign colonial settlers. There was not a native among them.

(CORRECTING THE ALLEGATION)

✪ "Palestine" was NOT defined or named for the "existing people" (the indigenous people); but rather to identify the Civil Administration under which the Mandate would be executed.

✪ "Palestine" was not created by post-war treaties.

✪ "Palestine" (The Administration of Palestine) enacted a nationality law; wherein the "habitual residence" and the Jews (residents and immigrants) acquired citizenship. Everyone on an equal footing. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples; the "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" would not be spelled-out until 2007 (nearly a century later).

✪ On the argument that "that creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it." This is what is called the frozen "Snapshot in Time." Common Sense tells us that attitudes change over time.

(COMMENT)

It goes without saying that the Jewish did not have a hive mentality at the turn of the Twentieth Century, at the time of the Mandate termination, at the turn of the 21st Century and even today. Whether or not Jewish Statehood was a foreign concept or not, it happened.

For the development of civilization, all progressive and successful cultures look forward in time; and not to the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy

What did I say that was incorrect?

In the part where You say that Palestinian Jews opposed the reconstitution of Israel, where in fact they were those who called for their liberation in the first place. The plight of Jews in Syria-Palestine was the cause that created the first Zionist political organized tools.

Palestinian Jews were giving whole plots of land to the Zionist organization for free, just at the sound of Israel revival, and wrote songs of redemption when they saw the 2000 years old promise of Israel in-gathering in front of their eyes.

This is Your weak spot - because without this apparent bold lie, Your racist argument holds no water.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy with the distinctive features whereby the Arab Palestinian whining is a tool on the manipulation in the projection of cries that invoke emotions in order to win an argument. The purpose of action (used for the last half-century) is the application of "pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies). In fact, one can hardly draw a name to any "successful" action by the Arab Palestinians that did not use this strategy. This application ["pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies)] is so successful that it has been effective in legitimizing the hijacking of aircraft, the Olympic Massacre, the suicide bombing, the machinegunning of innocent, unarmed men, women and children, the use of indiscriminate fire of rocket and mortars on to civilian targets, the intentional Location of launch sites from Densely Populated Areas, the intentional failure from removing civilians the Vicinity of legitimate military targets, and utilizing the presence of a civilian to provoke confrontation render certain points, areas or military forces immune from Israeli counter-fire.

THIS territorial argument uses this very same strategy, augmented by misinformation, to achieve similar results.

There is a problem with the "reconstituting their national home." When Palestine (Naming and defining the territory for the existing people.) was created by post war treaties, there were native Jews living in that territory. These Jews, along with the other inhabitants of the land, automatically became citizens of Palestine. These Jews, and the other citizens of Palestine, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it. All of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence were foreign colonial settlers. There was not a native among them.

(CORRECTING THE ALLEGATION)

✪ "Palestine" was NOT defined or named for the "existing people" (the indigenous people); but rather to identify the Civil Administration under which the Mandate would be executed.

✪ "Palestine" was not created by post-war treaties.

✪ "Palestine" (The Administration of Palestine) enacted a nationality law; wherein the "habitual residence" and the Jews (residents and immigrants) acquired citizenship. Everyone on an equal footing. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples; the "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" would not be spelled-out until 2007 (nearly a century later).

✪ On the argument that "that creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it." This is what is called the frozen "Snapshot in Time." Common Sense tells us that attitudes change over time.

(COMMENT)

It goes without saying that the Jewish did not have a hive mentality at the turn of the Twentieth Century, at the time of the Mandate termination, at the turn of the 21st Century and even today. Whether or not Jewish Statehood was a foreign concept or not, it happened.

For the development of civilization, all progressive and successful cultures look forward in time; and not to the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy

What did I say that was incorrect?

In the part where You say that Palestinian Jews opposed the reconstitution of Israel, where in fact they were those who called for their liberation in the first place. The plight of Jews in Syria-Palestine was the cause that created the first Zionist political organized tools.

Palestinian Jews were giving whole plots of land to the Zionist organization for free, just at the sound of Israel revival, and wrote songs of redemption when they saw the 2000 years old promise of Israel in-gathering in front of their eyes.

This is Your weak spot - because without this apparent bold lie, Your racist argument holds no water.

Link to the local Jews supporting a Jewish state?

 

[rylah]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy with the distinctive features whereby the Arab Palestinian whining is a tool on the manipulation in the projection of cries that invoke emotions in order to win an argument. The purpose of action (used for the last half-century) is the application of "pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies). In fact, one can hardly draw a name to any "successful" action by the Arab Palestinians that did not use this strategy. This application ["pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies)] is so successful that it has been effective in legitimizing the hijacking of aircraft, the Olympic Massacre, the suicide bombing, the machinegunning of innocent, unarmed men, women and children, the use of indiscriminate fire of rocket and mortars on to civilian targets, the intentional Location of launch sites from Densely Populated Areas, the intentional failure from removing civilians the Vicinity of legitimate military targets, and utilizing the presence of a civilian to provoke confrontation render certain points, areas or military forces immune from Israeli counter-fire.

THIS territorial argument uses this very same strategy, augmented by misinformation, to achieve similar results.

There is a problem with the "reconstituting their national home." When Palestine (Naming and defining the territory for the existing people.) was created by post war treaties, there were native Jews living in that territory. These Jews, along with the other inhabitants of the land, automatically became citizens of Palestine. These Jews, and the other citizens of Palestine, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it. All of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence were foreign colonial settlers. There was not a native among them.

(CORRECTING THE ALLEGATION)

✪ "Palestine" was NOT defined or named for the "existing people" (the indigenous people); but rather to identify the Civil Administration under which the Mandate would be executed.

✪ "Palestine" was not created by post-war treaties.

✪ "Palestine" (The Administration of Palestine) enacted a nationality law; wherein the "habitual residence" and the Jews (residents and immigrants) acquired citizenship. Everyone on an equal footing. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples; the "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" would not be spelled-out until 2007 (nearly a century later).

✪ On the argument that "that creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it." This is what is called the frozen "Snapshot in Time." Common Sense tells us that attitudes change over time.

(COMMENT)

It goes without saying that the Jewish did not have a hive mentality at the turn of the Twentieth Century, at the time of the Mandate termination, at the turn of the 21st Century and even today. Whether or not Jewish Statehood was a foreign concept or not, it happened.

For the development of civilization, all progressive and successful cultures look forward in time; and not to the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy

What did I say that was incorrect?

In the part where You say that Palestinian Jews opposed the reconstitution of Israel, where in fact they were those who called for their liberation in the first place. The plight of Jews in Syria-Palestine was the cause that created the first Zionist political organized tools.

Palestinian Jews were giving whole plots of land to the Zionist organization for free, just at the sound of Israel revival, and wrote songs of redemption when they saw the 2000 years old promise of Israel in-gathering in front of their eyes.

This is Your weak spot - because without this apparent bold lie, Your racist argument holds no water.

Link to the local Jews supporting a Jewish state?

I've already presented this when You claimed that the declaration of independence was signed by immigrants.

In the 70 years of modern Israel, there were more Palestinian Jews in the Israeli govt, than Indians in the US govt for all of its' 500 years of history.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Rabbi Uziel for example, he was the 1st Rishon LeZion of Israel, a native Jerusalemite Jew who was more Zionist than Ben Gurion himself.

During the War of Independence in 1948, a number of yeshiva
students came to Rabbi Uziel to obtain exemptions from military service.
He rejected their requests and said that if he were not already an
old man himself, he would be holding a gun and hand grenade, fighting
to defend the Old City of Jerusalem where he was born and raised.
This was a battle of life and death for the people of Israel. How could
anyone want to be exempted from fighting this great battle? On the
contrary, each person should rise to the occasion and give strength to
his fellow soldiers. He told the yeshiva students that it was a mitsvah for
them to join in the defense of their people, to risk their lives alongside
their brothers, to defend the Jewish people and the Jewish land. [11]

The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel | jewishideas.org

 

[Shusha]

There is a problem with the "reconstituting their national home." When Palestine (Naming and defining the territory for the existing people.) was created by post war treaties, there were native Jews living in that territory. These Jews, along with the other inhabitants of the land, automatically became citizens of Palestine. These Jews, and the other citizens of Palestine, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it. All of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence were foreign colonial settlers. There was not a native among them.

Once again you are fragmenting the Jewish people so you can erase them and deny them rights and even their own history. You do this with a deeply embedded sense that the Real (TM) Jewish people (the fragment that you call native) would prefer to live under the dhimmitude of another peoples rather than have self-determination in a reconstituted nation.

Let's go over your post in detail to illuminate:

First, be clear who "they" are. The rights of a people encompass the collective whole of the people. It does not apply only to some of them but to every single individual who self-identifies as being part of the collective and who is accepted by the group as being part of the collective. I KNOW you agree with this because you consistently argue that when considering the Palestinians we must include all of them -- those living in Israel, those living in non-Israel Palestine, and those living in foreign countries. You expressly reject the idea of fragmenting the people. You can't have it both ways.

Second, the reconstitution of a national home - including sovereignty over territory - for an existing peoples may be a practical problem but it is NEVER a problem in principle. Peoples have inherent, inviolable rights that are not dependent on meeting certain conditions. Again, I KNOW you agree with this because you consistently argue this when discussing the Arab Palestinian people.

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed. Leaving aside the fact that "Palestinian" as a peoples had not yet distinguished itself from "Syrian", "Jordanian" or even "Arab", that peoples consisted of two distinct groups -- the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish Palestinians. Therefore, using your example of naming and defining the territory for the existing peoples, the territory should have been called Israel and Palestine in order to represent both groups.

Next, you forget that immigrating Jews ALSO became citizens of "Israel and Palestine".

Finally, you claim that some Jews were opposed to self-determination, and wished to live under the sovereignty of another peoples. This point, while repeated often, has never been substantiated.in a meaningful way. The existence of a small sect of non-normative religious beliefs is not substantiation for your point. But, even so, opposition to self-determination by SOME does not negate the rights to self-determination for the group as a collective. That is, the fact that a number of Arab Palestinians, numbering now at over a million, accepted Israeli citizenship does NOT negate the rights of the remaining Arab Palestinians to self-determination.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy with the distinctive features whereby the Arab Palestinian whining is a tool on the manipulation in the projection of cries that invoke emotions in order to win an argument. The purpose of action (used for the last half-century) is the application of "pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies). In fact, one can hardly draw a name to any "successful" action by the Arab Palestinians that did not use this strategy. This application ["pity" used to used by the weak (Arab Palestinian Community) to blackmail the strong (Israel and their Allies)] is so successful that it has been effective in legitimizing the hijacking of aircraft, the Olympic Massacre, the suicide bombing, the machinegunning of innocent, unarmed men, women and children, the use of indiscriminate fire of rocket and mortars on to civilian targets, the intentional Location of launch sites from Densely Populated Areas, the intentional failure from removing civilians the Vicinity of legitimate military targets, and utilizing the presence of a civilian to provoke confrontation render certain points, areas or military forces immune from Israeli counter-fire.

THIS territorial argument uses this very same strategy, augmented by misinformation, to achieve similar results.

There is a problem with the "reconstituting their national home." When Palestine (Naming and defining the territory for the existing people.) was created by post war treaties, there were native Jews living in that territory. These Jews, along with the other inhabitants of the land, automatically became citizens of Palestine. These Jews, and the other citizens of Palestine, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it. All of the people who signed Israel's declaration of independence were foreign colonial settlers. There was not a native among them.

(CORRECTING THE ALLEGATION)

✪ "Palestine" was NOT defined or named for the "existing people" (the indigenous people); but rather to identify the Civil Administration under which the Mandate would be executed.

✪ "Palestine" was not created by post-war treaties.

✪ "Palestine" (The Administration of Palestine) enacted a nationality law; wherein the "habitual residence" and the Jews (residents and immigrants) acquired citizenship. Everyone on an equal footing. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples; the "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" would not be spelled-out until 2007 (nearly a century later).

✪ On the argument that "that creation of a Jewish state was a foreign concept. None of the natives wanted it." This is what is called the frozen "Snapshot in Time." Common Sense tells us that attitudes change over time.

(COMMENT)

It goes without saying that the Jewish did not have a hive mentality at the turn of the Twentieth Century, at the time of the Mandate termination, at the turn of the 21st Century and even today. Whether or not Jewish Statehood was a foreign concept or not, it happened.

For the development of civilization, all progressive and successful cultures look forward in time; and not to the past.

Most Respectfully,
R

This argument you put forth here is a variation on a theme, the strategy being → to employ a logical fallacy

What did I say that was incorrect?

In the part where You say that Palestinian Jews opposed the reconstitution of Israel, where in fact they were those who called for their liberation in the first place. The plight of Jews in Syria-Palestine was the cause that created the first Zionist political organized tools.

Palestinian Jews were giving whole plots of land to the Zionist organization for free, just at the sound of Israel revival, and wrote songs of redemption when they saw the 2000 years old promise of Israel in-gathering in front of their eyes.

This is Your weak spot - because without this apparent bold lie, Your racist argument holds no water.

Link to the local Jews supporting a Jewish state?

I've already presented this when You claimed that the declaration of independence was signed by immigrants.

In the 70 years of modern Israel, there were more Palestinian Jews in the Israeli govt, than Indians in the US govt for all of its' 500 years of history.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Rabbi Uziel for example, he was the 1st Rishon LeZion of Israel, a native Jerusalemite Jew who was more Zionist than Ben Gurion himself.

During the War of Independence in 1948, a number of yeshiva
students came to Rabbi Uziel to obtain exemptions from military service.
He rejected their requests and said that if he were not already an
old man himself, he would be holding a gun and hand grenade, fighting
to defend the Old City of Jerusalem where he was born and raised.
This was a battle of life and death for the people of Israel. How could
anyone want to be exempted from fighting this great battle? On the
contrary, each person should rise to the occasion and give strength to
his fellow soldiers. He told the yeshiva students that it was a mitsvah for
them to join in the defense of their people, to risk their lives alongside
their brothers, to defend the Jewish people and the Jewish land. [11]

The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel | jewishideas.org

OK, that's one.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once again you are fragmenting the Jewish people so you can erase them and deny them rights and even their own history. You do this with a deeply embedded sense that the Real (TM) Jewish people (the fragment that you call native) would prefer to live under the dhimmitude of another peoples rather than have self-determination in a reconstituted nation.

I did not.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Once again you are fragmenting the Jewish people so you can erase them and deny them rights and even their own history. You do this with a deeply embedded sense that the Real (TM) Jewish people (the fragment that you call native) would prefer to live under the dhimmitude of another peoples rather than have self-determination in a reconstituted nation.

I did not.

Wow, how expressive !!!!
We got all the explanation of what you meant by what you wrote in those three words.

How do you do it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed.

The people already existed. It is just that they changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinian citizens after the Treaty of Lausanne. Same people, different status.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once again you are fragmenting the Jewish people so you can erase them and deny them rights and even their own history. You do this with a deeply embedded sense that the Real (TM) Jewish people (the fragment that you call native) would prefer to live under the dhimmitude of another peoples rather than have self-determination in a reconstituted nation.

I did not.

Wow, how expressive !!!!
We got all the explanation of what you meant by what you wrote in those three words.

How do you do it?

You people make shit up then blame me for it.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed.

The people already existed. It is just that they changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinian citizens after the Treaty of Lausanne. Same people, different status.

Same wrong conclusion as always.
Why?
Because you forget that the indigenous Jewish people also became known as Palestinians, MAINLY because the British called that Mandate.......The Mandate for Palestine.

In other words, you have still not proven that there was a people known as "Palestinians" before the Ottomans lost all of that land around 1917.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Once again you are fragmenting the Jewish people so you can erase them and deny them rights and even their own history. You do this with a deeply embedded sense that the Real (TM) Jewish people (the fragment that you call native) would prefer to live under the dhimmitude of another peoples rather than have self-determination in a reconstituted nation.

I did not.

Wow, how expressive !!!!
We got all the explanation of what you meant by what you wrote in those three words.

How do you do it?

You people make shit up then blame me for it.

You never prove anything.

Your shit falls only on you.

Deal with it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once again you are fragmenting the Jewish people so you can erase them and deny them rights and even their own history. You do this with a deeply embedded sense that the Real (TM) Jewish people (the fragment that you call native) would prefer to live under the dhimmitude of another peoples rather than have self-determination in a reconstituted nation.

I did not.

Wow, how expressive !!!!
We got all the explanation of what you meant by what you wrote in those three words.

How do you do it?

You people make shit up then blame me for it.

You never prove anything.

Your shit falls only on you.

Deal with it.

Don't blame me for your reading comprehension problem.

 

[Hollie]

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed.

The people already existed. It is just that they changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinian citizens after the Treaty of Lausanne. Same people, different status.

You mean after the Treaty of Lausanne created the “country of Pal’istan”, right?

Same fraud, different thread.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed.

The people already existed. It is just that they changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinian citizens after the Treaty of Lausanne. Same people, different status.

You mean after the Treaty of Lausanne created the “country of Pal’istan”, right?

Same fraud, different thread.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Third, it is a fallacy to consider "Palestinian" as an "existing people" during the time frame you suggest. As Rocco correctly points out, you have a tendency to take modern concepts and work them backwards as though they have always existed.

The people already existed. It is just that they changed from Ottoman subjects to Palestinian citizens after the Treaty of Lausanne. Same people, different status.

You mean after the Treaty of Lausanne created the “country of Pal’istan”, right?

Same fraud, different thread.

Good, repeat that icon in front of the mirror a thousand times and see if your brain wakes up