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

[theliq]

The native people of Palestine are the Palestinians. The Jews were in Europe when the Mandate was signed. The Jews that colonized Palestine were natives of Europe, by definition.

Not according to you and your ilk, which is why you shouted to them " GO BACK TO IAREAL WHERE YOU BELONG"

Lean to spell ---- This is a "no content" post..

 

[theliq]

The people that colonized Palestine, ejected the native people from the land they had been living on for several millennia and established a state for Jews at the expense of the Christians and Muslims were nearly all European Zionists. That was my only point. Whether Jews from Mars or anywhere else arrived after the native people were dispossessed is not in question. Unless the Jews face the fact that they expropriated a whole people to create their Jewish state, why would they ever compromise and come to some sort of peace. If all Jews believe the propaganda that Boston posts, then the propaganda has them believing:

1. God gave them the land so it was ok to expropriate the Christians and Muslims
2. There were no non-Jews living in Palestine before the Zionists colonized the place.
3. The Palestinians don't exist.
4. The Palestinians arrived after partition.

etc. etc.etc. all Zionist propaganda.

And the lies go on and on.

1 The lands legal sovereign owners gave the Jews the land under International law

2 The Catholic encyclopedia shows that the Ottomans counted more Jews than muslims in Palestine ( sanjak of Jerusalem)

3 Define Palestinians as the evidence shows that most arrived in the invasion forces from the arab league

4 So the evidence shows that they did arrive during the invasion, care to show they didn't.



Yes your lies do go on and on and on

You keep going back to the Catholic encyclopedia. Nothing else supports your claim.

Apart from the Ottoman census records and the LoN records that are where the data comes from. All team Palestine has is a novel written by a committee and that contains errors all the way through. One of which is that the Jews own the most land on one page, and then on the next the whole of the muslim peoples are lumped together to show they inhabit more land.
Now as any intelligent person will tell you I can own land and you can inhabit it.

Then how about the UN setting up the Palestinians own refugee agency because the "Palestinians" did not meet the two year residency criteria to be classed as refugees otherwise.



Now prove that I have lied or I will be putting in a formal complaint about your behaviour and be asking that you be removed from this board.

You are so FULL OF SHIT....you should be Banned,for Excessive Verbal Shit Distribution on here --- This is a "no content post"..

 

[theliq]

See, I'm not seeing it that way....I see the arguments about indiginous-ity as a means to disenfranchise one or the other side, and I see it just as strongly played out by the pro-Israeli side seeking make Palestinians "non-People" with every rhetorical tool available: they are an invented people, they don't have a unique (enough) culture, they didn't exist before a certain date, they are squatters, they are colonists, they should be sent to some other country - the propoganda on that is relentness. How can you not see that? If arguments need to be countered - surely, they should be countered on both sides.

If you mean by dismanteling Israel - I agree.

However, Israel took for itself the territory the Palestinians live on and has held it under occupation - utilizing that territory to create their state is not carving it out of Israel.

But it has not taken it, and those that say they have are the ones trying to dismantle Israel. The land was Jewish in law, and that can not be disputed by anyone. The evidence was the Jordanian enacting of a law to relieve the Jews of ownership of the lands that Jordan occupied in 1949 and turning it over to Palestinian ownership. The Oslo accords turned back the pages of history and allowed the Jews who owned land in the west bank to reclaim it and make it theirs again. So get your facts right and stop posting from the Jew hatred anti semitic islamonazi POV

Well yes. It can.

Then dispute it in law, lets see how far you are prepared to go in your demonization of the Jews.


A history lesson for you that in itself proves that the land was Jewish.

Prior to 1900 the land was owned by the Ottoman empire that allowed minimal self rule by certain parts of the empire. The Ottomans went to war as allies of Germany and the Palestinians fought alongside their Mufti. They lost the war and so in line with the usual practise the losers lost land and goods to offset the costs incurred by the winning side. The land of Palestine was part of the reparations made to the LoN as the negotiators for the winning side. The LoN made treaties with various people allocating land to different groups, one of the groups was the Jews who received what was called Jewish Palestine, while the arab muslims received the lions share of all the land in the M.E. So dispute the international laws and the facts all you dare, as doing so will just show that you are a rabid anti Jew racist and Nazi.

According to the debate in the Mandate thread there were NO promises made to either the Jews or the Arabs and no land legally allocated to either group. It was an agreement between powers, not law.

And who said this then as the Mandate is very clear in its words.

Here it is again making just thaose promises




The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate




The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;




VERY VERY VERY CLEAR PROMISES, UNLESS YOU ARE A JEW HATER

Usual JEW HATING Comments..........only you say Jew Haters -- this post has no topical content.

 

[flacaltenn]

Want to try for four in a row?

 

[theliq]

Want to try for four in a row?

I was responding to a previous post from Phoenall,I suggest you alert him..steve,you see you blithely give me sarcasm,but the root cause you remain mute..funny that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Want to try for four in a row?

I was responding to a previous post from Phoenall,I suggest you alert him..steve,you see you blithely give me sarcasm,but the root cause you remain mute..funny that.

I did in #309.. Obviously warnings aren't working. Thought I'd try to HIGHLIGHT what we're trying to reduce. Not particularly picking on anyone. PM the moderators if you want to discuss moderation..

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No. I've never argued Israel is not legitimate or legal. States come into being in many different ways. Israel is here, it exists, it has for some time now, it's legitimate as far as I am concerned and the world in 2016 is a different place than the world at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The way I understand it, the Mandate was an agreement amongst the allied powers only to sort out the division of Palestine. No promises were made to any else.

This is Palestine.

It was created in 1920, so anybody born there is indiginous. Since Jews, Arabs, and Druze have been born there, they would be considered such.

Now, since Arabs cannot get along with anybody, it was necessary to divide the territory in such a way that the portion of the population they routinely persecute was to have a place to exercise their self-determination.

My question to you is this: If you claim to support such legitimacy, why does the entirety of your posting history on the subject consist of attacking it while championing the agenda of the Arabs who do?


This entire sidebar as to who is "indiginous" only distracts from the issue of legitimacy. If you believe Israel is legitimate, why all these thousands of postings attacking such? I would think if you found Israel to be legitimate, your main concern would be issues of realpolitic instead of propaganda, and you would be focused on ways to figure out the best ways to administer to the division of this territory called Palestine.

On one hand, you have the Israeli settler movement and Eratz Israel types pushing for more land. On the other hand, you have an entire subculture of Arabs who celebrate mass murder and elect leadership promising genocide. With all your focusing of criticism against Israel, you conveniently ignore all the savagery ingrained into this dysfunctional Arab subculture.

 

[montelatici]

No. I've never argued Israel is not legitimate or legal. States come into being in many different ways. Israel is here, it exists, it has for some time now, it's legitimate as far as I am concerned and the world in 2016 is a different place than the world at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The way I understand it, the Mandate was an agreement amongst the allied powers only to sort out the division of Palestine. No promises were made to any else.

This is Palestine.

It was created in 1920, so anybody born there is indiginous. Since Jews, Arabs, and Druze have been born there, they would be considered such.

Now, since Arabs cannot get along with anybody, it was necessary to divide the territory in such a way that the portion of the population they routinely persecute was to have a place to exercise their self-determination.

My question to you is this: If you claim to support such legitimacy, why does the entirety of your posting history on the subject consist of attacking it while championing the agenda of the Arabs who do?


This entire sidebar as to who is "indiginous" only distracts from the issue of legitimacy. If you believe Israel is legitimate, why all these thousands of postings attacking such? I would think if you found Israel to be legitimate, your main concern would be issues of realpolitic instead of propaganda, and you would be focused on ways to figure out the best ways to administer to the division of this territory called Palestine.

On one hand, you have the Israeli settler movement and Eratz Israel types pushing for more land. On the other hand, you have an entire subculture of Arabs who celebrate mass murder and elect leadership promising genocide. With all your focusing of criticism against Israel, you conveniently ignore all the savagery ingrained into this dysfunctional Arab subculture.

A 2005 map from a Zionist propaganda site doesn't change historical fact.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A 2005 map from a Zionist propaganda site doesn't change historical fact.

Good grief, you are a broken record with this stupid crap.

This is not propaganda. It is the original mandate of Palestine, just as it was when I learned history in the 1960s.

 

[montelatici]

You learned propaganda. Amman was in the southern part of the Arab Kingdom of Syria ruled by the Hashemites. The French invaded Damascus and expelled the Hashemite King. In a compromise, the French agreed to transfer Amman and the south of the Arab Kingdom of Syria to the British who named it Trans-Jordania where the Hashemites continued to rule with an Arab administration. It was inhabited by Bedouins not Palestinians.

This is very clear in official historical documents available in the UN archives. You have confirmed how Americans are taught Zionist propaganda in high school.

"Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends--the boundary is not yet defined--where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people. It contains a few small towns and large areas of fertile land, producing excellent wheat and barley. The people are partly settled townsmen and agriculturists, partly wandering Bedouin; the latter, however, cultivate areas, more or less fixed, during certain seasons of the year.

When Palestine west of the Jordan was occupied by the British Army and placed under a British military administration, over Trans-Jordania and a large part of Syria there was established an Arab administration, with its capital at Damascus. The ruler was His Highness the Emir Feisal, the third son of H.M. King Hussein, the King of the Hejaz. When Damascus was occupied by French troops in July, 1920, and the Emir Feisal withdrew, it was necessary to adopt fresh measures in Trans-Jordania. I proceeded to the central town of Salt on August 20th, and, at an assembly of notables and sheikhs of the district, announced that His Majesty's Government favoured the establishment of a system of local self- government, assisted by a small number of British officers as advisers.


https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/349B02280A930813052565E90048ED1C

 

[flacaltenn]

No. I've never argued Israel is not legitimate or legal. States come into being in many different ways. Israel is here, it exists, it has for some time now, it's legitimate as far as I am concerned and the world in 2016 is a different place than the world at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The way I understand it, the Mandate was an agreement amongst the allied powers only to sort out the division of Palestine. No promises were made to any else.

This is Palestine.

It was created in 1920, so anybody born there is indiginous. Since Jews, Arabs, and Druze have been born there, they would be considered such.

Now, since Arabs cannot get along with anybody, it was necessary to divide the territory in such a way that the portion of the population they routinely persecute was to have a place to exercise their self-determination.

My question to you is this: If you claim to support such legitimacy, why does the entirety of your posting history on the subject consist of attacking it while championing the agenda of the Arabs who do?


This entire sidebar as to who is "indiginous" only distracts from the issue of legitimacy. If you believe Israel is legitimate, why all these thousands of postings attacking such? I would think if you found Israel to be legitimate, your main concern would be issues of realpolitic instead of propaganda, and you would be focused on ways to figure out the best ways to administer to the division of this territory called Palestine.

On one hand, you have the Israeli settler movement and Eratz Israel types pushing for more land. On the other hand, you have an entire subculture of Arabs who celebrate mass murder and elect leadership promising genocide. With all your focusing of criticism against Israel, you conveniently ignore all the savagery ingrained into this dysfunctional Arab subculture.

I'm not in this thread because I don't deem "being indigenous" as any particular proud achievement. So your comments are right on. In that being born as a SUBJECT of the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire or British Empire doesn't come with a deed for future statehood. To me -- all of that is mute and silly. It takes something LIKE the Zionist movement to create a nation.

The only other point is -- if after 50 years of occupation and conflict -- you cannot settle out a "status" for Self Rule of the people falling under your Adminstration -- life must go on. Israel has waited long enough for a Palestinian Statehood movement to form --- and the prospects are now as bleak as ever. So --- it's understandable that pressures for development and settlement of the unresolved occupied territorities would be an increasing problem.

Evidently -- on the scale of organization and leadership and vision -- "indigenous" is about as far as the "Palestine Freedom Movement" is able to go...

 

[theliq]

No. I've never argued Israel is not legitimate or legal. States come into being in many different ways. Israel is here, it exists, it has for some time now, it's legitimate as far as I am concerned and the world in 2016 is a different place than the world at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The way I understand it, the Mandate was an agreement amongst the allied powers only to sort out the division of Palestine. No promises were made to any else.

This is Palestine.

It was created in 1920, so anybody born there is indiginous. Since Jews, Arabs, and Druze have been born there, they would be considered such.

Now, since Arabs cannot get along with anybody, it was necessary to divide the territory in such a way that the portion of the population they routinely persecute was to have a place to exercise their self-determination.

My question to you is this: If you claim to support such legitimacy, why does the entirety of your posting history on the subject consist of attacking it while championing the agenda of the Arabs who do?


This entire sidebar as to who is "indiginous" only distracts from the issue of legitimacy. If you believe Israel is legitimate, why all these thousands of postings attacking such? I would think if you found Israel to be legitimate, your main concern would be issues of realpolitic instead of propaganda, and you would be focused on ways to figure out the best ways to administer to the division of this territory called Palestine.

On one hand, you have the Israeli settler movement and Eratz Israel types pushing for more land. On the other hand, you have an entire subculture of Arabs who celebrate mass murder and elect leadership promising genocide. With all your focusing of criticism against Israel, you conveniently ignore all the savagery ingrained into this dysfunctional Arab subculture.

YOU WILL NOTE THE WORD PALESTINE ON THIS MAP.........NO MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID.......the Jews were a small minority in Palestine in 1920.......It does say where Jews wanted a homeland.........but the only way this could be done was by STEALING PALESTINIANS LAND........which is what and still is happening...........Anything else is Zionist BULLSHIT

 

[theliq]

No. I've never argued Israel is not legitimate or legal. States come into being in many different ways. Israel is here, it exists, it has for some time now, it's legitimate as far as I am concerned and the world in 2016 is a different place than the world at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The way I understand it, the Mandate was an agreement amongst the allied powers only to sort out the division of Palestine. No promises were made to any else.

This is Palestine.

It was created in 1920, so anybody born there is indiginous. Since Jews, Arabs, and Druze have been born there, they would be considered such.

Now, since Arabs cannot get along with anybody, it was necessary to divide the territory in such a way that the portion of the population they routinely persecute was to have a place to exercise their self-determination.

My question to you is this: If you claim to support such legitimacy, why does the entirety of your posting history on the subject consist of attacking it while championing the agenda of the Arabs who do?


This entire sidebar as to who is "indiginous" only distracts from the issue of legitimacy. If you believe Israel is legitimate, why all these thousands of postings attacking such? I would think if you found Israel to be legitimate, your main concern would be issues of realpolitic instead of propaganda, and you would be focused on ways to figure out the best ways to administer to the division of this territory called Palestine.

On one hand, you have the Israeli settler movement and Eratz Israel types pushing for more land. On the other hand, you have an entire subculture of Arabs who celebrate mass murder and elect leadership promising genocide. With all your focusing of criticism against Israel, you conveniently ignore all the savagery ingrained into this dysfunctional Arab subculture.

I'm not in this thread because I don't deem "being indigenous" as any particular proud achievement. So your comments are right on. In that being born as a SUBJECT of the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire or British Empire doesn't come with a deed for future statehood. To me -- all of that is mute and silly. It takes something LIKE the Zionist movement to create a nation.

The only other point is -- if after 50 years of occupation and conflict -- you cannot settle out a "status" for Self Rule of the people falling under your Adminstration -- life must go on. Israel has waited long enough for a Palestinian Statehood movement to form --- and the prospects are now as bleak as ever. So --- it's understandable that pressures for development and settlement of the unresolved occupied territorities would be an increasing problem.

Evidently -- on the scale of organization and leadership and vision -- "indigenous" is about as far as the "Palestine Freedom Movement" is able to go...

YOU really mean Flac>>>>>>>ALLOWED TO GO<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[theliq]

A 2005 map from a Zionist propaganda site doesn't change historical fact.

Good grief, you are a broken record with this stupid crap.

This is not propaganda. It is the original mandate of Palestine, just as it was when I learned history in the 1960s.

Then you leant nothing

 

[abu afak]

YOU WILL NOTE THE WORD PALESTINE ON THIS MAP.........NO MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID.......the Jews were a small minority in Palestine in 1920.......It does say where Jews wanted a homeland.........but the only way this could be done was by STEALING PALESTINIANS LAND........which is what and still is happening...........Anything else is Zionist BULLSHIT

False.
1. The land was very sparse
2. Arabs, aka palestinians, got 87% of Dogmaphobe's map you quoted (77% Jordan and 10% rejected palestine)
3. Jews bought alot of the private land
4. Of the roughly Half of lesser palestine that became Israel, most was owned by NO Arab, and and was State land under the Ottomans. (Miri/belonging to the Emir).
That includes the HALF of Israel that is the Negev Desert. A thought-useles/near-empty throw-in to make a viable amount of land.
5. Your posts SUCK and are mostly one line TROLLS containing NO information, just empty hostility.
+

 

[montelatici]

1. Land was about as populated as anywhere else in the general area. There is a documentary film from 1896 that validates
2. Palestinians, Christians and Muslims got no part of the land they lived on.
3. Jews had bought less than 7% of the land by the time of partition. 93% was owned by the non-Jews.
4. None of the land was owned by any Emir when the Mandate came into effect.
5. You are a propagandist and a liar with no information, just racial hate for the native people of Palestine.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Then you leant nothing

Ah, yes -- all those atlases I studied when I was a kid were just part of some great conspiracy.

 

[abu afak]

1. Land was about as populated as anywhere else in the general area. There is a documentary film from 1896 that validates

Except more than 30x as many people live there now.

2. Palestinians, Christians and Muslims got no part of the land they lived on.

False and nonsensical. Again, 87% of the Mandate land was given as Arab states, and the 13% that the partition designated as Israel required NO Arabs to leave.

3. Jews had bought less than 7% of the land by the time of partition. 93% was owned by the non-Jews.
4. None of the land was owned by any Emir when the Mandate came into effect.

7% is true, but 93% is False. As I explained above, most of what became Israel was State land under the Ottomans.
You simply can't just say "No" to what someone else posted without explanation, otherwise you are Trolling. No surprise.
Nonetheless, I will take the burden anyway since my posting IS about Content and facts.

CAMERA: Back to the Future:

"..Mattar's clear, and false, implication is that if Jews owned only some small percentage of the land, then Arabs must have owned the rest, in this case more than 93% of the country.

But this is nonsense – in Mandate Palestine the Arabs owned little more land than did the Jews. Indeed, going back to Ottoman times, most of the country was state-owned land, not under any individual ownership. Thus, under the Ottoman code one of the main land categories was miri, meaning land belonging to the Emir.
During the Mandate, the British carried out detailed land surveys, marking off who owned what, and according to figures in the 'British Survey of Palestine' (republished and endorsed by Mattar's Institute for Palestine Studies), at least 65% of the country was state land, and probably much more than that.[.....]
​

5. You are a propagandist and a liar with no information, just racial hate for the native people of Palestine.

The usual Montel-al-Williams Lie.
My posts are always meaty and fact-filled/Link backed, while You are just the usual foaming at the mouth anti-semite parading as an anti-cough-zionist.
+

 

[montelatici]

CAMERA is a propaganda site.

1. Land was about as populated as anywhere else in the general area. There is a documentary film from 1896 that validates

Except more than 30x as many people live there now.

2. Palestinians, Christians and Muslims got no part of the land they lived on.

False and nonsensical. Again, 87% of the Mandate land was given as Arab states, and the 13% that the partition designated as Israel required NO Arabs to leave.

3. Jews had bought less than 7% of the land by the time of partition. 93% was owned by the non-Jews.
4. None of the land was owned by any Emir when the Mandate came into effect.

7% is true, but 93% is False. As I explained above, most of what became Israel was State land under the Ottomans.
You simply can't just say "No" to what someone else posted without explanation, otherwise you are Trolling. No surprise.
Nonetheless, I will take the burden anyway since my posting IS about Content and facts.

CAMERA: Back to the Future:

"..Mattar's clear, and false, implication is that if Jews owned only some small percentage of the land, then Arabs must have owned the rest, in this case more than 93% of the country.

But this is nonsense – in Mandate Palestine the Arabs owned little more land than did the Jews. Indeed, going back to Ottoman times, most of the country was state-owned land, not under any individual ownership. Thus, under the Ottoman code one of the main land categories was miri, meaning land belonging to the Emir.
During the Mandate, the British carried out detailed land surveys, marking off who owned what, and according to figures in the 'British Survey of Palestine' (republished and endorsed by Mattar's Institute for Palestine Studies), at least 65% of the country was state land, and probably much more than that.[.....]
​

5. You are a propagandist and a liar with no information, just racial hate for the native people of Palestine.

The usual Montel-al-Williams Lie.
My posts are always meaty and fact-filled/Link backed, while You are just the usual foaming at the mouth anti-semite parading as an anti-cough-zionist.
+

CAMERA is surely a reliable neutral source. LOL

Game, set, match. You win, Arabs possessed only 85% of the land.

UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1

164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "

 

[abu afak]

CAMERA is a propaganda site
..
164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "

Really?
1. You're impeaching Your own "93%" Lie. LOL/OUCHER
2. 85% is ALL of Palestine (and slightly incorrect according to the British Survey's own numbers), while I was talking ONLY about the part that became Israel
Apples and Oranges, Akhmed.
oooops!
Speak English.
3. WHO owned the 50% of what became Israel that was the Negev Desert?
4. SPLAT!
5. Your Unispal repertoire/document dumps are very limited and leave you Rigid and Nonconversant.