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

[P F Tinmore]

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

There has not been a time that the Israelis, from the time of the Declaration of Independence, has not had defined borders.

Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.

(COMMENT)

It is apparent to me that you do not know what "define borders" means.

Defined borders are those borders defended by sovereign power. That is something the Israels have had since 1948, and something in which the Arab Palestinians have not had since they declared independence in 1988. To this day, the Arab Palestinians do not have any borders that they defend or that express their sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has internationally recognized de facto borders.

 

[Sixties Fan]

A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:

S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that "there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."



Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel - the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.

(full article online)

No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[P F Tinmore]

A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:

S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that "there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."



Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel - the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.

(full article online)

No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

It is interesting that the British and the Zionists both called it colonialism. It was not until later that Israel changed its shtick to self determination.

 

[Sixties Fan]

A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:

S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that "there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."



Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel - the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.

(full article online)

No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

It is interesting that the British and the Zionists both called it colonialism. It was not until later that Israel changed its shtick to self determination.

It is wrong that both British and Jews called it "colonialism" when it has always been the return of the indigenous Jews to their ancient homeland, where many Jews continued to live.

No shtick, not then, not now, not ever.

Colonizing means taking over someone's land as Europeans and Arabs have done for the past 1700 years.

Get used to the idea that Jews are BACK in their ancient homeland, even though 80% of it has been stolen by colonizing, invading, migrating Arabs.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ ForeverYoung436, et al,

Yes, that is a good question.

What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part. What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?

(COMMENT)

The US Administration (ie White House or Executive Branch) peridoicallyruns afoul with the Congress (ie Capitol Hill or Legislature) over the position the US holds relative to International Law and Foreign Policy. There has been times when the Congress insisted that the US should not seek International Consensus - or that International Consensus not play a part in the US decision making process.

The White House has been put in conflict between US Domestic Policy as expressed by Congress and the interpretation of International Law as expressed by Convention, International Agreements, Individual Security Assistance Commitments, and Treaties. This has been especially true with regard to the US - Israeli status 'vs' US - Arab League Status, and US Relations indivudally with Arab States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:

S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that "there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."



Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel - the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.

(full article online)

No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

It is interesting that the British and the Zionists both called it colonialism. It was not until later that Israel changed its shtick to self determination.

Israeli self-determination by way of re-establishing the Jewish State was a goal of the Mandate.

What did the Arabs-Moslems call their colonization of the area?

 

[rylah]

A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:

S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that "there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."



Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel - the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.

(full article online)

No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

It is interesting that the British and the Zionists both called it colonialism. It was not until later that Israel changed its shtick to self determination.

So what, Arabs also used to refer to themselves as a separate race rather than a nation in official documents, are You suggesting we abandon the Palestinian narrative and discussing race?

It is also interesting that the Arabs attempted to cede the land to a king from Arabia, as opposed to seeking independence. They also referred to themselves as a separate race in official documents and considered the Palestinian identity to be "a Zionist invention".

What didn't change is Arabs still identify as foreign invaders marching under the flag of the 4 Caliphates that stole the lands from almost every nation in the middle east.

 

[Rehmani]

If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.

second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.

Most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.

Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.

You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.

But I said, you are not jew and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.

Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.

As I said you are not a jew and ask to sixty fan you can not discuss here your on nonsense.
Also ask to some rabbi too and I am not jew.
Lets say israel is not legitimate country.

 

[Rehmani]

Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.

You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.

But I said, you are not jew and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.

Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.

As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?

Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.

And it is one of the many reasons that israel can not be legitimate.

 

[Rehmani]

Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.

You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.

But I said, you are not jew and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.

Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.

As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?

Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.

The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.

That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.

But you don't follow international laws and as you are already rejecting UN. And I am sure tomorrow when international law will be against israel you don't accept that either.

 

[Rehmani]

Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.

As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?

Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.

The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
What followed was incremental division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian kings.

All of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land.

By whom?

By the Allied Powers, the same ones who were helped by the Arabs to bring down the Ottoman Caliphate, and the same ones who were responsible for creating new states in the rest of the middle east
giving 99% of the land to Arabs.

By the allied powers, the same one who helped to israel and divided the region in 5 different nation so no one can claim over israel.

 

[Rehmani]

Most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.

Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.

You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.

But I said, you are not jew and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.

Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.

As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?

Are you?

 

[Rehmani]

You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.

But I said, you are not jew and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.

Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.

As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?

Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.

The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.

That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.

What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part. What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?

But now this member state is not following the UN order.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Rehmani,

OK, I got a bit disoriented here.

But now this member state is not following the UN order.

(COMMENT)

◈→ Back-up!

✪ Just what UN "Order" are we discussion here?

✪ Does the UN have the authority to dictate national activity?​

✪ Can the UN issue the US (or any other sovereign nation) an "order" of any kind?​

When we talk about sovereignty, we must remember that in politically backing the hostile components of the pro-Arab Palestinian consortium opposing Israeli Sovereignty (Jewish National Home) and the national identity of the Jewish People:

The use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.
• SOURCE LINK •

Translated from the general to the specific:

◈ The use of force (by the International Community and the Pro-Arab Palestinian Consortium) to deprive (Israeli) peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.​

The territorial integrity of Israel and it's International Boundaries ARE "self-Evident." No matter what the Arab Palestinian may say, there is no country that does not recognize when they have passed from one sovereign territory into Israeli Sovereign Territory. Even the Arab Palestinians of the Gaza Strip and West Bank (including Jerusalem) can immediately tell where Israel sovereign control begins and ends. Anyone that says or implies that Israel has no borders is simply ignorant of the ground truth and the reality that they don't comprehend the barriers at the border. Even the "Great March" participants that find themselves prostrate on the wire have come to realize: Hey, there really is a barrier here and it is protected by the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.

Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.

Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?

Israel must be doing a really bad job of global dominance, since the U.N. passes resolution after resolution against it. And with global dominance, can't they get an area of the world a little bigger than something that's the size of New Jersey?

 

[RoccoR]

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

What utter nonsense. This is a small group of pseudo-political scientist and military bunglers that tell tall tales of a magical country (Israel) used by Arab Palestinians to frighten the weak minded and constituent sheep into mimicking the Arab Mantra about how dangerous Israel is to regional peace. And now, the antisemitic mumblers are trying to draw a picture about how much influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has on our President.

Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.
Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure if this small group of Talk Show folks is opposing the CIA and by extension, the US --- or --- if they are suggesting the Israelis are taking over South America.

These guys have too much free time.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

What utter nonsense. This is a small group of pseudo-political scientist and military bunglers that tell tall tales of a magical country (Israel) used by Arab Palestinians to frighten the weak minded and constituent sheep into mimicking the Arab Mantra about how dangerous Israel is to regional peace. And now, the antisemitic mumblers are trying to draw a picture about how much influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has on our President.

Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.
Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure if this small group of Talk Show folks is opposing the CIA and by extension, the US --- or --- if they are suggesting the Israelis are taking over South America.

These guys have too much free time.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is just interesting that when he started his radio program, he was one of these Israel can do no wrong people.

 

[Sixties Fan]

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

What utter nonsense. This is a small group of pseudo-political scientist and military bunglers that tell tall tales of a magical country (Israel) used by Arab Palestinians to frighten the weak minded and constituent sheep into mimicking the Arab Mantra about how dangerous Israel is to regional peace. And now, the antisemitic mumblers are trying to draw a picture about how much influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has on our President.

Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.
Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure if this small group of Talk Show folks is opposing the CIA and by extension, the US --- or --- if they are suggesting the Israelis are taking over South America.

These guys have too much free time.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is just interesting that when he started his radio program, he was one of these Israel can do no wrong people.

Either what you are alleging about him is true, or is another way you and others have of playing mind games with people, to make it look as if Israel is doing wrong, or has done wrong towards the Arabs.

You do this ALL THE TIME.

Conspiracy Theories and Theorists have no place on this thread.

 

[Rehmani]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Rehmani,

OK, I got a bit disoriented here.

But now this member state is not following the UN order.

(COMMENT)

◈→ Back-up!

✪ Just what UN "Order" are we discussion here?

✪ Does the UN have the authority to dictate national activity?​

✪ Can the UN issue the US (or any other sovereign nation) an "order" of any kind?​

When we talk about sovereignty, we must remember that in politically backing the hostile components of the pro-Arab Palestinian consortium opposing Israeli Sovereignty (Jewish National Home) and the national identity of the Jewish People:

The use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.
• SOURCE LINK •

Translated from the general to the specific:

◈ The use of force (by the International Community and the Pro-Arab Palestinian Consortium) to deprive (Israeli) peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.​

The territorial integrity of Israel and it's International Boundaries ARE "self-Evident." No matter what the Arab Palestinian may say, there is no country that does not recognize when they have passed from one sovereign territory into Israeli Sovereign Territory. Even the Arab Palestinians of the Gaza Strip and West Bank (including Jerusalem) can immediately tell where Israel sovereign control begins and ends. Anyone that says or implies that Israel has no borders is simply ignorant of the ground truth and the reality that they don't comprehend the barriers at the border. Even the "Great March" participants that find themselves prostrate on the wire have come to realize: Hey, there really is a barrier here and it is protected by the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

✪ Just what UN "Order" are we discussion here?
Israel followed the order in 1949 when it was there favor.

✪ Does the UN have the authority to dictate national activity?
When UN have authority in 1949, but not now because it not Israel favor.

✪ Can the UN issue the US (or any other sovereign nation) an "order" of any kind?
UN can't issue the order of any VETO Power. This is the reason Israel is not following the UN order, not because of hostile Palestine and this is the very good reason HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH are formed, because Israel continuously refusing the rights/demands of people of Palestine backed by VETO. Means hostile reaction HAMAS/HEZBOLLAH only entered in the conflict because of Israeli paranoid-ism.
Means death is as definite as life is, it not means to give up the life. Similarly Israelis are invading Arab Land its not means Arab give up their Holly Land mean Israelis either give up the paranoid-ism or leave the Holly Land.
"(politically backing the hostile components of the pro-Arab Palestinian consortium opposing Israel)" And what about Israeli invasion, are they fallen from the sky or appeared from the ground. Israel jew got holly land in return to help coalition against German. And now don't say that Jew didn't help coalition and German were mad to killed six million jew, which I will say, its a false claim that German killed six million jews.