The Two State Option Is Dying

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; Hossfly; et al,

My point exactly.


(REFERENCE)

• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969

(COMMENT)


Palestine (the Mandate) was not sovereign. It had no treaty because it had not borders beyond that defined by the Mandatory IAW Article 95 of the Treaty.


The Hashemite Kingdom and the State of Israel were partitioned out of the Mandate. But the Palestinians did not accept partition, and did not attempt to build a nation. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)(Article 6), every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties. But Palestine was not a state. Thus it has no capacity to enter into a Treaty.
So I ask again, where is it written or recorded that Palestine has borders beyond that established artificially by the Allied Powers for the purpose of the Mandate (Article 95 of the Treaty)?

Most Respectfully,
R

What you keep getting wrong is not acknowledging the indigenous people in Palestine had and still have sovereignty rights in the land of Palestine. That will never change.

Sherri is confused-----even the UN which has striven mightily to DEFINE
and describe "INDIGENOUS" peoples ----have failed to come up with anything
but a very very broad and vague definition-----which if used for the
people of the west bank would include all------and probably most
robustly ----the SAMARITANS which is a small group of
people ---members of a sect of judaism. The jews living
in the west bank would absolutely be described as 'indigenous"
based on self description. language, culture and historic link---
the people who lately call themselves "palestinians" have the
least robust claim to "indiginous" since they speak a language
introduced to the area but not native and have a religion introduced
but not native ----BUT based on the very broad definition
used by the UN----they TOO can be called "indigenous" in the same
way texans with remote ancestry in europe can TODAY be
called indigenous to texas. There are no FIRM or IMMUTABLE
or ETERNAL rights ------owned by indigenous people anywhere
in the world . According to the definition used by the UN ---and
the Universal Rights of Man------Shariah law would have to be abolished
in dozens of "islamic" lands Sherri's assertion turns out to be
meaningless

You seem to be hung up on names. The people of a place are called several names: the people, a people, inhabitants, permanent population, natives, indigenous...

The Palestinians define a Palestinian as anyone, Muslim, Christian, or Jew who lived inside their international borders when they were defined in 1922. I cannot think of a more reasonable definition.

That would mean that people like Lipush and her family, for example, are Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

SherriMunnerlyn; et al,

I think you are making a false extrapolation.

What you keep getting wrong is not acknowledging the indigenous people in Palestine had and still have sovereignty rights in the land of Palestine. That will never change.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the Charter says that self-determination is limited to "indigenous people." Nothing in the Charter says "in the land."

1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;

SOURCE: A/RES/50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes

Nothing in the Charter grants or recognizes "sovereignty rights in the land."

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at the statement.

...all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference...

Note that "peoples" is plural. There is more than one people. There are many people who are divided by location. There are French people, British people, etc..

And when it says "without external interference" what else could it mean but that one people cannot interfere with the affairs of another people?

The term "without external interference" is there for a reason.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

The phrase "without external interference" doesn't apply to the Mandate, since the Mandate was written by the same people who wrote the Charter.

The term "without external interference" is there for a reason.

(COMMENT)

Your interpretation and the authors interpretation are quite different. And the same authors wrote and voted on the partition.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

SherriMunnerlyn; et al,

I think you are making a false extrapolation.

What you keep getting wrong is not acknowledging the indigenous people in Palestine had and still have sovereignty rights in the land of Palestine. That will never change.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the Charter says that self-determination is limited to "indigenous people." Nothing in the Charter says "in the land."

Nothing in the Charter grants or recognizes "sovereignty rights in the land."

Most Respectfully,
R

Look at the statement.

...all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference...

Note that "peoples" is plural. There is more than one people. There are many people who are divided by location. There are French people, British people, etc..

And when it says "without external interference" what else could it mean but that one people cannot interfere with the affairs of another people?

The term "without external interference" is there for a reason.

Good point----the statement is very badly conceived----It could be
construed to mean that witnin a country--
--a people can decide to line up all persons of a
given creed or sect or race and machine gun them -
----that statement should be carefully clarified. So far it
has facilitated genocides in sudan, nigeria, uganda--
etc etc It facilitates shariah

 

[RoccoR]

irosie91; et al,

I respectfully offer this dissenting view.

Good point----the statement is very badly conceived----It could be
construed to mean that witnin a country--
--a people can decide to line up all persons of a
given creed or sect or race and machine gun them -
----that statement should be carefully clarified. So far it
has facilitated genocides in sudan, nigeria, uganda--
etc etc It facilitates shariah

(COMMENT)

This all falls back to three important crutches the pro-Palestinian movement is critically dependent upon.

First, they insist that the Jews were "foreigners." I submit that they were specially invited by the very organizational body that published the quote in contention (supra).

The UN Charter is for the UN Body to interpret and implement. It was not written by the Palestinian, specifically for the Palestinian. It was authored as a general principle. But in the case of the Mandate, there was an express intention passed on by the LoN/UN, via the Allied Powers and the Mandatory. That intention was to create a Jewish National Home. And to the extent possible, it was intended that the Jewish People migrate to that territorial region to build that Jewish National Home; not as foreigners, but as the intended population of the Jewish National Home ("in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people").

Ultimately, the body organization, wrote and Passed GA Resolution 181(II), the Partition Plan that lead directly to the Jewish State. It was not ambiguous, it was very specific. There was no argument that they intended for a Jewish State to be established. No matter how the Palestinian may interpret the single phrase, the body that authored the language saw this as a specific case and not a generalized case. And it, as a body that authored the original Charter language, implemented GA Resolution 181(II), in the very same fashion as the approved the original Charter.​

Secondly, the Palestinian consistently raise the phrase "external influences."

The concept of an "external influence" is that which is not directly a party to the event. There is no question that the Jewish People were a direct party to the events unfolding and the resolution passed by the UN GA. If there was a set of "external influences," it was the Arab League and the Armies that were sent to attack Israel. The Jewish People, the Mandatory, the Allied Powers, the UN/LoN were all directly connected and the authors that wrote the basic principles and the specific resolution pertaining to the partition. The Arab League was not; they were the "external influences" and the associated proponents of the wars that followed. War in direct contravention to the Charter (Ch VII).​

Finally, one of the common themes here is the idea that somehow, in 1922, Palestine was somehow established.

That is categorically false. Article 95, of the Treaty of Sevres, specifically left the establishment of the boundaries of the territory to the Allied Power --- and not the people or any specific culture like the Palestinians ("the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers"). It is an artificially established mandate.

Now the Arab League and the Palestinians play this little game where they suggest that in order for the State of Israel to be legitimate, that the people of Palestine must first ratify it. That is a false assumption. It was up to the body of authors that wrote the UN Charter to make that determination. And they did just that under the very same Articles that some would challenge the meaning of today.​

Without regard to how the Palestinian propaganda machine may try and twist the word, manipulate the language, or substitute their own interpretation, the record is clear.

• The Body of the UN/LoN authored the Charter.
• The Body of the UN/LoN authored GA Resolution 181(II).
• The Body of the UN/LoN acknowledge and recognized the State of Israel.
• The Body of the UN/LoN has recorded the various treaties with the neighboring states adjacent to Israel.
  THEREFORE: Israel, the State of, is legitimate.

It is done.

For more than half a century, the self-proclaimed people called Palestinians, have argued and warred against the State of Israel, using civil unrest, mayhem and murder, terrorist tactics, asymmetric warfare, and conventional military invasion campaigns to impair the inherent right of Israeli peace. The Palestinians, using acts of violence against a Member of the United Nations, in direct opposition to the principle that they should refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Threw these acts violence, inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, demonstrate their willful disregard to settlement of their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that regional peace, security, and justice are maintained, are a criminal culture. Any people that believes that the Palestinian has some UN sanctioned right to conduct acts of war against a duly established state, for the purpose of disestablishing that state, is operating outside the parameters as instituted by the Charter.

War is a choice and the people of Palestine have made that choice. They need to accept the responsibility for their actions (the destruction of property, the wounded and the dead) and assume the consequences as a result of their choice.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

The phrase "without external interference" doesn't apply to the Mandate, since the Mandate was written by the same people who wrote the Charter.

The term "without external interference" is there for a reason.

(COMMENT)

Your interpretation and the authors interpretation are quite different. And the same authors wrote and voted on the partition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then what does it mean and why did they put it in there?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

There are several different kinds of "external influences."

Then what does it mean and why did they put it in there?

(PREVIOUSLY)

Secondly, the Palestinian consistently raise the phrase "external influences."

The concept of an "external influence" is that which is not directly a party to the event. There is no question that the Jewish People were a direct party to the events unfolding and the resolution passed by the UN GA. If there was a set of "external influences," it was the Arab League and the Armies that were sent to attack Israel. The Jewish People, the Mandatory, the Allied Powers, the UN/LoN were all directly connected and the authors that wrote the basic principles and the specific resolution pertaining to the partition. The Arab League was not; they were the "external influences" and the associated proponents of the wars that followed. War in direct contravention to the Charter (Ch VII).​

(COMMENT)

The UN put the external influence clause in the Charter as an attempt to establish a principle that outside powers (not sanctioned by the UN body) should be discouraged from attempting to manipulate the popular choice of the people in a democratic process (exercise of self-determination) by overt, covert, and clandestine means.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

P F Tinmore; et al,

The phrase "without external interference" doesn't apply to the Mandate, since the Mandate was written by the same people who wrote the Charter.

The term "without external interference" is there for a reason.

(COMMENT)

Your interpretation and the authors interpretation are quite different. And the same authors wrote and voted on the partition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then what does it mean and why did they put it in there?

Good point tinsy-----since "they" put it there----"they" should have
recused themselves from the whole matter-----since by writing it up---
they were clearly exerting "external influence" The word "external"
requires a reference as to EXTERNAL TO WHAT The statement was
a bit ill-conceived----vague One could ask----was GREAT BRITAIN
"external" to the british mandate palestine-----or was the
British Mandate Palestine INTERNAL to the british empire? thus making
the british empire-----CONTIGUOUS with british mandate palestine?

when anyone says "left" or "right" or "in" or "up" there must be
reference point. Are you trying to tell us that the involvement of
countries like syria and jordan and egypt----in the 1948 war was illegal
on the basis of "external influence"?? ok

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

The phrase "without external interference" doesn't apply to the Mandate, since the Mandate was written by the same people who wrote the Charter.


(COMMENT)

Your interpretation and the authors interpretation are quite different. And the same authors wrote and voted on the partition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then what does it mean and why did they put it in there?

Good point tinsy-----since "they" put it there----"they" should have
recused themselves from the whole matter-----since by writing it up---
they were clearly exerting "external influence" The word "external"
requires a reference as to EXTERNAL TO WHAT The statement was
a bit ill-conceived----vague One could ask----was GREAT BRITAIN
"external" to the british mandate palestine-----or was the
British Mandate Palestine INTERNAL to the british empire? thus making
the british empire-----CONTIGUOUS with british mandate palestine?

when anyone says "left" or "right" or "in" or "up" there must be
reference point. Are you trying to tell us that the involvement of
countries like syria and jordan and egypt----in the 1948 war was illegal
on the basis of "external influence"?? ok

The term is interference not influence. People who come to help is not an interference.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore;

Yes you are correct. In UN parlance, it is "interference."

The term is interference not influence. People who come to help is not an interference.

(COMMENT)

My mistake in using another phrase. But that doesn't change the intent I outlined.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

First, they insist that the Jews were "foreigners."

Israel is the project of the World Zionist Organization (a foreign organization} and the Jewish Agency. (another foreign organization)

Of the 37 people (with ties to the Zionists) who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

The foreign Zionists imported foreign settlers by the thousands to populate their planned Jewish state.

Foreigners? Where could they have gotten such an outlandish opinion?

 

[Kondor3]

It's way, wwwaaayyy too late for nonsense like that... decades too late... it's done... a fait accompli... it's over... possession is 9/10 of the law... Vae victus, and all that...

 

[Hossfly]

First, they insist that the Jews were "foreigners."

Israel is the project of the World Zionist Organization (a foreign organization} and the Jewish Agency. (another foreign organization)

Of the 37 people (with ties to the Zionists) who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

The foreign Zionists imported foreign settlers by the thousands to populate their planned Jewish state.

Foreigners? Where could they have gotten such an outlandish opinion?

So tell us, Tinnie, how many Arabs do you think would have landed up in Israel from their poor surrounding countries if the Jews didn't have jobs for them? I don't think the British Officials in the area were lying to Winston Churchill when they said the Arabs came in droves for these jobs. I realize you don't live in Gaza at present, but surely wherever you now live in the U.S., unless you are living in a very tiny, tiny town, you have seen people move into this country for the jobs (especially the poor Hispanics from south of our border), the same way your fellow Arabs moved into Israel and the same way they are moving into Europe now and even the U.S.

 

[irosie91]

First, they insist that the Jews were "foreigners."

Israel is the project of the World Zionist Organization (a foreign organization} and the Jewish Agency. (another foreign organization)

Of the 37 people (with ties to the Zionists) who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

The foreign Zionists imported foreign settlers by the thousands to populate their planned Jewish state.

Foreigners? Where could they have gotten such an outlandish opinion?

There are MOSQUES ---large and impressive ----in the USA funded entirely by SAUDIs
tinsy is right---they should all be bombed out of existence as an example of
ILLEGAL FOREIGN INTERVENTION in the affairs of the USA In fact the
the islamic hero SHAYKH ABDEL RAHMAN---the dog who bombed the
world trace center in 1993 ---woriked out of an EGYPTIAN FUNDED mosque
in Jersey City which INEXPLICABLY is permitted to remain standing.
Recently I ran into a man living in the USA who told he funds a hospital
for children in NEPAL----FOREIGN INTERVENTION---he must be jailed


I have asked before tinsy-----how were the jews "IMPORTED" in cans like sardines
from Norway?
I know lots of people who migrated to Israel in the pre 1948 era-----some had a bit
of help from relatives outside the sharah cesspits that they fled----but they were
certainly not "IMPORTED" -----they were escapees from the filth that you endorse

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First off, being "foreign" is not a delimiting factor in any human rights issue; and certainly not in regards to any privilege or right outlined in the Charter.

First, they insist that the Jews were "foreigners."

Israel is the project of the World Zionist Organization (a foreign organization} and the Jewish Agency. (another foreign organization)

Of the 37 people (with ties to the Zionists) who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

The foreign Zionists imported foreign settlers by the thousands to populate their planned Jewish state.

Foreigners? Where could they have gotten such an outlandish opinion?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigration was Mandated, a prerequisite to the establishment of a Jewish National Home. (One might ask how else.) The Mandatory was entrusted with the Administration of Palestine, which under Article 6, facilitated Jewish immigration to meet the obligation to establish the National Home.

The Jewish immigrants were a special category, all their own; similar to a permanent resident alien before establishing citizenship. The World Zionist Organization could be considered a "foreign organization" in some respects; however, the Jewish Agency was established for Palestine and accredited by the Allied Powers/LoN in the Mandate (Article 4). And the Jewish Agency was a derivative organization from the greater Zionist Organization (sanctioned by the 16th Zionist Congress). The Jewish Agency is a quasi-government activity and is not a foreign organization. Bothe the WZO and the Jewish Agency were recognized entities by the Mandate.

Particularly in Western Democracies, the idea of a "foreigner" is not held quite the same. As an example, the following foreigners (Immortalized as Founding Fathers) signed the Declarations of Independence.

• Robert Morris Lancashire, England
• James Smith Dublin, Ireland
• James Wilson Carskerdo, Scotland
• George Taylor Ireland
• Matthew Thornton Ireland
• Francis Lewis Llandaff, Wales
• Button Gwinnett Down Hatherly, England
• John Witherspoon Gifford, Scotland

There are many heroes of the State were foreign born.

Major General Louis Lebègue Duportail, who served as the chief engineer in the Continental Army for General Washington during the American Revolutionary War; was born in Orléans, France. Major Generals Edward Hand was born in Ireland; Johann de Kalb was born in Erlangen, Bavaria; Charles Lee was born in Cheshire, England. And who could forget Major Generals Friedrich von Steuben and Gilbert du Motier - Marquis de La Fayette.​

As I said, being a "foreigner" is seldom a handicap - especially relative to International Principles. The nationality of who signed the Israeli Declaration of Independence is not an issue unless you are a Xenophobe. But, in propaganda, it can be expressed in such a way as to make it sound derogatory (those foreigners!).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First off, being "foreign" is not a delimiting factor in any human rights issue; and certainly not in regards to any privilege or right outlined in the Charter.

First, they insist that the Jews were "foreigners."

Israel is the project of the World Zionist Organization (a foreign organization} and the Jewish Agency. (another foreign organization)

Of the 37 people (with ties to the Zionists) who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

The foreign Zionists imported foreign settlers by the thousands to populate their planned Jewish state.

Foreigners? Where could they have gotten such an outlandish opinion?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigration was Mandated, a prerequisite to the establishment of a Jewish National Home. (One might ask how else.) The Mandatory was entrusted with the Administration of Palestine, which under Article 6, facilitated Jewish immigration to meet the obligation to establish the National Home.

The Jewish immigrants were a special category, all their own; similar to a permanent resident alien before establishing citizenship. The World Zionist Organization could be considered a "foreign organization" in some respects; however, the Jewish Agency was established for Palestine and accredited by the Allied Powers/LoN in the Mandate (Article 4). And the Jewish Agency was a derivative organization from the greater Zionist Organization (sanctioned by the 16th Zionist Congress). The Jewish Agency is a quasi-government activity and is not a foreign organization. Bothe the WZO and the Jewish Agency were recognized entities by the Mandate.

Particularly in Western Democracies, the idea of a "foreigner" is not held quite the same. As an example, the following foreigners (Immortalized as Founding Fathers) signed the Declarations of Independence.

• Robert Morris Lancashire, England
• James Smith Dublin, Ireland
• James Wilson Carskerdo, Scotland
• George Taylor Ireland
• Matthew Thornton Ireland
• Francis Lewis Llandaff, Wales
• Button Gwinnett Down Hatherly, England
• John Witherspoon Gifford, Scotland

There are many heroes of the State were foreign born.

Major General Louis Lebègue Duportail, who served as the chief engineer in the Continental Army for General Washington during the American Revolutionary War; was born in Orléans, France. Major Generals Edward Hand was born in Ireland; Johann de Kalb was born in Erlangen, Bavaria; Charles Lee was born in Cheshire, England. And who could forget Major Generals Friedrich von Steuben and Gilbert du Motier - Marquis de La Fayette.​

As I said, being a "foreigner" is seldom a handicap - especially relative to International Principles. The nationality of who signed the Israeli Declaration of Independence is not an issue unless you are a Xenophobe. But, in propaganda, it can be expressed in such a way as to make it sound derogatory (those foreigners!).

Most Respectfully,
R

So when these foreigners destroyed Palestine, how should the Palestinians view them?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First off, being "foreign" is not a delimiting factor in any human rights issue; and certainly not in regards to any privilege or right outlined in the Charter.

Israel is the project of the World Zionist Organization (a foreign organization} and the Jewish Agency. (another foreign organization)

Of the 37 people (with ties to the Zionists) who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

The foreign Zionists imported foreign settlers by the thousands to populate their planned Jewish state.

Foreigners? Where could they have gotten such an outlandish opinion?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigration was Mandated, a prerequisite to the establishment of a Jewish National Home. (One might ask how else.) The Mandatory was entrusted with the Administration of Palestine, which under Article 6, facilitated Jewish immigration to meet the obligation to establish the National Home.

The Jewish immigrants were a special category, all their own; similar to a permanent resident alien before establishing citizenship. The World Zionist Organization could be considered a "foreign organization" in some respects; however, the Jewish Agency was established for Palestine and accredited by the Allied Powers/LoN in the Mandate (Article 4). And the Jewish Agency was a derivative organization from the greater Zionist Organization (sanctioned by the 16th Zionist Congress). The Jewish Agency is a quasi-government activity and is not a foreign organization. Bothe the WZO and the Jewish Agency were recognized entities by the Mandate.

Particularly in Western Democracies, the idea of a "foreigner" is not held quite the same. As an example, the following foreigners (Immortalized as Founding Fathers) signed the Declarations of Independence.

• Robert Morris Lancashire, England
• James Smith Dublin, Ireland
• James Wilson Carskerdo, Scotland
• George Taylor Ireland
• Matthew Thornton Ireland
• Francis Lewis Llandaff, Wales
• Button Gwinnett Down Hatherly, England
• John Witherspoon Gifford, Scotland

There are many heroes of the State were foreign born.

Major General Louis Lebègue Duportail, who served as the chief engineer in the Continental Army for General Washington during the American Revolutionary War; was born in Orléans, France. Major Generals Edward Hand was born in Ireland; Johann de Kalb was born in Erlangen, Bavaria; Charles Lee was born in Cheshire, England. And who could forget Major Generals Friedrich von Steuben and Gilbert du Motier - Marquis de La Fayette.​

As I said, being a "foreigner" is seldom a handicap - especially relative to International Principles. The nationality of who signed the Israeli Declaration of Independence is not an issue unless you are a Xenophobe. But, in propaganda, it can be expressed in such a way as to make it sound derogatory (those foreigners!).

Most Respectfully,
R

So when these foreigners destroyed Palestine, how should the Palestinians view them?

How did they destroy Palestine? They took barren wasteland and swamps and turned it into a productive enterprise. If they moved out today it would return to it's former status.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

First off, being "foreign" is not a delimiting factor in any human rights issue; and certainly not in regards to any privilege or right outlined in the Charter.


(COMMENT)

The Jewish immigration was Mandated, a prerequisite to the establishment of a Jewish National Home. (One might ask how else.) The Mandatory was entrusted with the Administration of Palestine, which under Article 6, facilitated Jewish immigration to meet the obligation to establish the National Home.

The Jewish immigrants were a special category, all their own; similar to a permanent resident alien before establishing citizenship. The World Zionist Organization could be considered a "foreign organization" in some respects; however, the Jewish Agency was established for Palestine and accredited by the Allied Powers/LoN in the Mandate (Article 4). And the Jewish Agency was a derivative organization from the greater Zionist Organization (sanctioned by the 16th Zionist Congress). The Jewish Agency is a quasi-government activity and is not a foreign organization. Bothe the WZO and the Jewish Agency were recognized entities by the Mandate.

Particularly in Western Democracies, the idea of a "foreigner" is not held quite the same. As an example, the following foreigners (Immortalized as Founding Fathers) signed the Declarations of Independence.

• Robert Morris Lancashire, England
• James Smith Dublin, Ireland
• James Wilson Carskerdo, Scotland
• George Taylor Ireland
• Matthew Thornton Ireland
• Francis Lewis Llandaff, Wales
• Button Gwinnett Down Hatherly, England
• John Witherspoon Gifford, Scotland

There are many heroes of the State were foreign born.

Major General Louis Lebègue Duportail, who served as the chief engineer in the Continental Army for General Washington during the American Revolutionary War; was born in Orléans, France. Major Generals Edward Hand was born in Ireland; Johann de Kalb was born in Erlangen, Bavaria; Charles Lee was born in Cheshire, England. And who could forget Major Generals Friedrich von Steuben and Gilbert du Motier - Marquis de La Fayette.​

As I said, being a "foreigner" is seldom a handicap - especially relative to International Principles. The nationality of who signed the Israeli Declaration of Independence is not an issue unless you are a Xenophobe. But, in propaganda, it can be expressed in such a way as to make it sound derogatory (those foreigners!).

Most Respectfully,
R

So when these foreigners destroyed Palestine, how should the Palestinians view them?

How did they destroy Palestine? They took barren wasteland and swamps and turned it into a productive enterprise. If they moved out today it would return to it's former status.

Israeli propaganda crap.

 

[Hossfly]

So when these foreigners destroyed Palestine, how should the Palestinians view them?

How did they destroy Palestine? They took barren wasteland and swamps and turned it into a productive enterprise. If they moved out today it would return to it's former status.

Israeli propaganda crap.

My words, Tinmore.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How did they destroy Palestine? They took barren wasteland and swamps and turned it into a productive enterprise. If they moved out today it would return to it's former status.

Israeli propaganda crap.

My words, Tinmore.

It is true that a very small amount of wasteland was made productive.

However, it is also true that Palestine regularly produced a surplus of food that was exported to other countries.

So a little land here or there was no big deal.