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

[Challenger]

You are saying that an Arab who converts to Judaism is no longer Arab. And I call bullshit.

...and you'd be more or less right, although I see where Montelatici is coming from too. Conversion to Judaism does not change "race/ethnicity"; Jewish Europeans remain European, they certainly don't suddenly metamorphose into descendants of ancient Middle Easterners when they convert.

 

[montelatici]

No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam. In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.

Exactly. So Jewish people can be culturally Jewish, you know, speaking Hebrew, and eating kosher and all the other things which make up a culture, of which religion is only a part.

On the contrary, the religion of Judaism is much more pervasive; "eating Kosher" is not a cultural phenomenon, it is an integral part of the religion's dietary laws. Without the religion, there is no "Jewish culture".

No more pervasive than Islam, in fact, probably less so. A Jew from Italy has little in common with an Ashkenazi Jew or Sephardic Jew except religion. An Italian Jew eats Italian, speaks and reads Italian and even looks Italian. Kaifeng Jews (and Muslims) have only religion in common with Middle Eastern Jews and Muslims. Arab Jews, were culturally and linguistically just as Arab as Christian and Muslim Arabs. It's just a religion.

 

[Phoenall]

History of the Palestinians: A Land Without a People

And it shows a desolate landscape with few inhabitants

 

[Phoenall]

No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam. In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.

Exactly. So Jewish people can be culturally Jewish, you know, speaking Hebrew, and eating kosher and all the other things which make up a culture, of which religion is only a part.

On the contrary, the religion of Judaism is much more pervasive; "eating Kosher" is not a cultural phenomenon, it is an integral part of the religion's dietary laws. Without the religion, there is no "Jewish culture".

It is a means of stopping certain diseases from spreading through communities if you did your homework

 

[Phoenall]

You are saying that an Arab who converts to Judaism is no longer Arab. And I call bullshit.

...and you'd be more or less right, although I see where Montelatici is coming from too. Conversion to Judaism does not change "race/ethnicity"; Jewish Europeans remain European, they certainly don't suddenly metamorphose into descendants of ancient Middle Easterners when they convert.

And European Jews descended from Roman slaves are still Jews no matter where they live. And no matter how you twist words they will still be Jews descended from Jews stolen by the Romans as slaves

 

[Phoenall]

No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam. In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.

Exactly. So Jewish people can be culturally Jewish, you know, speaking Hebrew, and eating kosher and all the other things which make up a culture, of which religion is only a part.

On the contrary, the religion of Judaism is much more pervasive; "eating Kosher" is not a cultural phenomenon, it is an integral part of the religion's dietary laws. Without the religion, there is no "Jewish culture".

No more pervasive than Islam, in fact, probably less so. A Jew from Italy has little in common with an Ashkenazi Jew or Sephardic Jew except religion. An Italian Jew eats Italian, speaks and reads Italian and even looks Italian. Kaifeng Jews (and Muslims) have only religion in common with Middle Eastern Jews and Muslims. Arab Jews, were culturally and linguistically just as Arab as Christian and Muslim Arabs. It's just a religion.

No they dont as I have yet to see a British Jew eat pork pies, lasagne or pasta bake, bacon butties, fish and chips or work on a Saturday

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Phoenall]

Dont see any references to arab muslim colonialism in the video, after all they are not indigenous to the area are they.

Greek and Roman christians are fron Greece and Rome, while arab muslims are from Arabia

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine: The Missing Narrative. Paolo Barnard

 

[Hollie]

Israeli resistance to Arab-Moslem terrorism

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

From this post: Who are the Israelis?

Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

Indeed, those are the two core principles of the mandate system.

1. The mandates did not annex the territories. Palestine was a state separate from the Mandate.*
2. The Mandates held the territories in trust for the benefit of the people in their respective states.

*From your link:
A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:

The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.[28]​

 

[Hollie]

From this post: Who are the Israelis?

Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]

Indeed, those are the two core principles of the mandate system.

1. The mandates did not annex the territories. Palestine was a state separate from the Mandate.*
2. The Mandates held the territories in trust for the benefit of the people in their respective states.

*From your link:
A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:

The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.[28]​

What purpose is served by your cutting and pasting out of context cutting and pasting across multiple threads?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

The history of Pal'istan under Islamist control

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[yiostheoy]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

Well the best way I can describe it is that the Jewish influence in London led to the Balfour Declaration which many Jews then took seriously and began their emigration from the UK and from Europe to the Levant asap.

The really smart ones left right away.

The foolish ones remained in Europe.

30 years later this waiting came back to haunt them big time.

Then in 1948 the UN and the UK tried to put the genie back into the bottle.

But genies do not go back into bottles. Nor can you close Pandora's box.

Since then numerous foreign monetary donations to The Jewish State has helped it to prosper.

And the ineptitude of anti-Zion-ism has made anti-Zion-ist opposition impotent.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.

They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.

Never going to happen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.

They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.

Never going to happen.

It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.

They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.

Never going to happen.

It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.

Once you leave something it has been abandoned.

It is no longer yours.

The Palestinians are S.O.L.

They left.

They are morons.