What Kind of State in Israel?

[Hossfly]

Here's where I'm starting, Rocco:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water under the bridge, gone with the wind, spilt milk

Just another lie the rich tell?
Like all those dominoes in Vietnam, Killer?
Or the multitude of WMDs in Fallujah?

I think by now that we can all see that Georgie Boy hates the U.S., but he has no problem at all with his friends, the Muslims, with murdering hundreds of millions of innocent people. Gee, Georgie Boy still has it against people who have money because he has been so lax in his life trying to make something of himself that he has to depend on subsidized housing and an extra handout from Social Security. I know how he can pick up a few bucks. They are going to allow the Muslims in the prison where Johnny Lindh Walker is incarcerated to gather for prayers, and if Georgie Boy takes lessons in being an Imam, he can lead the prayers. No doubt some Muslim organization will be happy to pay him for this.

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, irosie91, et al,

Yes, there is an interesting concept connection here, that needs explored.

could you define "in the process" ? A process for killing jews and confiscating their
property was initiated and legalized in arabia ----and then in dozens of other countries
and it is still ongoing In fact islamic iran uses a similar process to kill "Bahais"
and confiscate their property-----now that they have virtually completed their pillage
program upon zoroastrians and jews

is there are a statute of limitations upon these "PROCESS" actions ---in reference
to the reaction? Since the city of Hebron was taken in 1929 over the dead bodies
of jewish kids with slit throats------and once jews returned the PROCESS continued
in a kind of indolent manner-----did that make the action of Dr Boruch Goldstein
entirely legal-----gee----if so his murderers can be tried for murder. HOw about the
1947- 1948 starvation siege of east jerusalem------did that justify blowing the brains
out of any muslim child in THE WORLD?

Are you encountering difficulty responding to Israel's policy of "creeping annexation" in Palestine? Last time I looked neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran was located between the River and the sea. In the last 65 years Jews have engaged in a process that has expanded the Jewish control of Palestinian land by a factor of several hundred percent. During the past 22 years 126 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians while over 1400 Palestinian children have died at Jew hands. All of your amateurish attempts at deflection won't ever change that current reality.

(COMMENT)

There are really two issues here that have collided.

• There should be no real misunderstanding on the objective of Israel and the inertia that pushes the actions they have taken.
  • The first is the right of self-defense, and the defensible borders issue, is one in which there is an endless hunt for strategic ground.
  • The second is the religious context in which the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean take-on; especially the City of Jerusalem.

• Here we make a connection between the efficiency in which each side kills off the other, and the righteousness of the cause in which they pursue this fruitless activity.
  • In one sense, this is about the tactical competency in performance of Israeli countermeasures to Palestinian aggressive action.
  • In the second sense, this is about the lack of competency in the ability of the Palestinian to form a coherent defense against Israeli retaliatory action.

I'm unclear as to which aspect we are addressing.

Most Respectfully,
R

There should be no real misunderstanding on the objective of Israel and the inertia that pushes the actions they have taken.

Indeed, the stated goal of the Zionists for the last hundred years is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. All of Israel's actions have been to fulfill that goal.

In one sense, this is about the tactical competency in performance of Israeli countermeasures to Palestinian aggressive action.

Foreigners attacked and occupied Palestine. How do you see Palestinian aggression?

 

[irosie91]

georgephillip, irosie91, et al,

Yes, there is an interesting concept connection here, that needs explored.

Are you encountering difficulty responding to Israel's policy of "creeping annexation" in Palestine? Last time I looked neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran was located between the River and the sea. In the last 65 years Jews have engaged in a process that has expanded the Jewish control of Palestinian land by a factor of several hundred percent. During the past 22 years 126 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians while over 1400 Palestinian children have died at Jew hands. All of your amateurish attempts at deflection won't ever change that current reality.

(COMMENT)

There are really two issues here that have collided.

• There should be no real misunderstanding on the objective of Israel and the inertia that pushes the actions they have taken.
  • The first is the right of self-defense, and the defensible borders issue, is one in which there is an endless hunt for strategic ground.
  • The second is the religious context in which the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean take-on; especially the City of Jerusalem.

• Here we make a connection between the efficiency in which each side kills off the other, and the righteousness of the cause in which they pursue this fruitless activity.
  • In one sense, this is about the tactical competency in performance of Israeli countermeasures to Palestinian aggressive action.
  • In the second sense, this is about the lack of competency in the ability of the Palestinian to form a coherent defense against Israeli retaliatory action.

I'm unclear as to which aspect we are addressing.

Most Respectfully,
R

There should be no real misunderstanding on the objective of Israel and the inertia that pushes the actions they have taken.

Indeed, the stated goal of the Zionists for the last hundred years is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. All of Israel's actions have been to fulfill that goal.

In one sense, this is about the tactical competency in performance of Israeli countermeasures to Palestinian aggressive action.

Foreigners attacked and occupied Palestine. How do you see Palestinian aggression?

Mr. R. try to simplify your question Tinnie has expanded it to the thousands of
years of INCURSIONS into Palestine ----like VOLUMES AND VOLUMES of history.
Even alexander was in Jerusalem

 

[RoccoR]

Hossfly, georgephillip, et al,

Yes, this is an important historical (1917 era) document. But there are slightly better documents you should consider and appreciate.

The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
SOURCE: The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

Here's where I'm starting, Rocco:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water under the bridge, gone with the wind, spilt milk

(COMMENT)

The intention is what is important; and not the common interpretation by laymen.

The Mandate for Palestine, the terms of which were confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, has governed the policy of successive British Governments for nearly 20 years. It embodies the Balfour Declaration and imposes on the Mandatory four main obligations. These obligations are set out in Article 2, 6 and 13 of the Mandate. There is no dispute regarding the interpretation of one of these obligations, that touching the protection of and access to the Holy Places and religious building or sites. The other three main obligations are generally as follows:

To place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People. To facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions, and to encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, close settlement by Jews on the Land.

To safeguard the civil and religious rights of all inhabitants of Palestine irrespective of race and religion, and, whilst facilitating Jewish immigration and settlement, to ensure that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced.

To place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the development of self governing institutions.​

SOURCE: The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

In addition to these basic "original concept" ideas, it is important to understand how the intervening history altered the intended end-state of the Mandate. From the original Jewish state which it evolved "In Palestine" (a British WP Term) there were a series of military Arab-Israeli, during this intervening period: 1948–49, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982; precipitating the expansion of territory controlled by Israel.

After these more conventional engagements, the Islamic Resistance Movement documented and formalized its overall strategies and objectives that had developed over time.

Definition of the Movement Article 7: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Strategies and Methods Article 15: The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.

Our Attitudes Towards: Article 32: The Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road. The Movement adds its efforts to the efforts of all those who are active in the Palestinian arena. Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews.

SOURCE: The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

You should note that Article 32 outlines the need for an Arab Alliance against the Jewish people. This is designated a Religious War by the Islamic Resistance Movement, with the intention to totally destroy the Jewish Homeland. This objective and attitude has not change in the last 3 decades. And, in fact, there are many Palestinians and Arabs that have adopted the use of this language and phrasing in the Covenant. We have one in our own discussion group.

The clash between the establishment of the original intent, and the forces intending to destroy the Jewish State in its entirety, inadvertently caused the expansion and what has now become Israel (plus) (Israel and the Occupied Territories).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, georgephillip, irosie91, et al,

One cannot understand the development of today's situation unless one understands two critical points:

• That the Arab and Palestinian have not been in control since before the Ottoman Empire.
• That under the British Mandate, there was the intention of establishing a Jewish Homeland.

There should be no real misunderstanding on the objective of Israel and the inertia that pushes the actions they have taken.

Indeed, the stated goal of the Zionists for the last hundred years is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. All of Israel's actions have been to fulfill that goal.

(COMMENT)

You are still living in the 19th Century. While "all of Palestine" may have been a dream at one time, in 1948, they did not ask for all of Palestine. They asked for the piece of the territory promised by the Mandate.

The expansion and Occupation came as an outcome by subsequent aggression by the Palestinians and Arab States. You cannot blame the lost of territory on a war started by the Arab and Palestinian. If the Arab had not attempted to militarily conquer the Israeli, there would still be an Israel bounded by the 1948 borders.

In one sense, this is about the tactical competency in performance of Israeli countermeasures to Palestinian aggressive action.

Foreigners attacked and occupied Palestine. How do you see Palestinian aggression?

(COMMENT)

What foreigners. Jewish Immigration?

First, the territory was not Palestinian. It was under British Mandate, and before that, Ottoman. This is just an excuse because of the greedy and barbaric actions of the Arab and Palestinian, they lost ground.

How much better off would the Palestinian and Arab be if they had not been aggressive?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Where does "Israel (plus) end?
Does your interpretation mean the Arabs were right all along about Jewish colonialism in Palestine?
It's hard for me to imagine a democratic Jewish state extending from the River to the Sea.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, georgephillip, irosie91, et al,

One cannot understand the development of today's situation unless one understands two critical points:

• That the Arab and Palestinian have not been in control since before the Ottoman Empire.
• That under the British Mandate, there was the intention of establishing a Jewish Homeland.

There should be no real misunderstanding on the objective of Israel and the inertia that pushes the actions they have taken.

Indeed, the stated goal of the Zionists for the last hundred years is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. All of Israel's actions have been to fulfill that goal.

(COMMENT)

You are still living in the 19th Century. While "all of Palestine" may have been a dream at one time, in 1948, they did not ask for all of Palestine. They asked for the piece of the territory promised by the Mandate.

The expansion and Occupation came as an outcome by subsequent aggression by the Palestinians and Arab States. You cannot blame the lost of territory on a war started by the Arab and Palestinian. If the Arab had not attempted to militarily conquer the Israeli, there would still be an Israel bounded by the 1948 borders.

In one sense, this is about the tactical competency in performance of Israeli countermeasures to Palestinian aggressive action.

Foreigners attacked and occupied Palestine. How do you see Palestinian aggression?

(COMMENT)

What foreigners. Jewish Immigration?

First, the territory was not Palestinian. It was under British Mandate, and before that, Ottoman. This is just an excuse because of the greedy and barbaric actions of the Arab and Palestinian, they lost ground.

How much better off would the Palestinian and Arab be if they had not been aggressive?

Most Respectfully,
R

They asked for the piece of the territory promised by the Mandate.

The mandate did not and could not promise any land. It was not theirs to give away.

there would still be an Israel bounded by the 1948 borders.

There never were any 1948 borders.

BTW, you never responded to this post http://www.usmessageboard.com/6637015-post234.html That would explain the rest of your post.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

I have to answer this in reverse order.

It's hard for me to imagine a democratic Jewish state extending from the River to the Sea.

(COMMENT)

The ineptitude of the Palestinian/Arab/Persian Alliance may actually set the conditions for this to happen. I would not so easily dismiss the possibility that future events may create a refugee flow, created by their own hand.

Does your interpretation mean the Arabs were right all along about Jewish colonialism in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

No, not at all. If the Arabs had not attacked Israel (several times), and there had developed a peaceful arrangement between the Regional States and Israel; then, in all probability, Israel would still be inside the 1948 borders.

Where does "Israel (plus) end?

(COMMENT)

It can be stopped with the establishment of peace and recognition of the state. It could recede, and the Occupation end, if the peace is sustained.

We don't know. The Israelis need some assurances, more than a reasonable expectation that given the opportunity, hostile forces will not exploit the relaxation of Israeli defensive posture and attack Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

"Joel Greenberg, writing in the New York Times notes; ‘At Israel's founding in 1948, the Labor Zionist leadership, which went on to govern Israel in its first three decades of independence, accepted a pragmatic partition of what had been British Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states.

"The opposition Revisionist Zionists, who evolved into today's Likud party, sought Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema -- Greater Israel, or literally, the Whole Land of Israel."

Rocco...do you honestly believe early leaders in Israel were not planning to eventually conquer the Whole Land of Israel?

Greater Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You and I will always disagree on this, but it doesn't really matter, it was accepted by the UN. Answering in reverse order.

The mandate did not and could not promise any land. It was not theirs to give away.

There never were any 1948 borders.

(COMMENT)

The 1948 borders were accepted as part of the application for membership. It was an annex, pre-approved in UN Res 181, which was valid at the time.

The UK had the mandate. It was not a decision open for Palestinian debate.

LINK: The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

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;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

ARTICLE 1.

The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

The Mandate is an interesting document. You should read it some time.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

What people wanted to do, varies among the factions. I am quite sure - that during that period - there was quite a debate on what should be done and who to

"Joel Greenberg, writing in the New York Times notes; ‘At Israel's founding in 1948, the Labor Zionist leadership, which went on to govern Israel in its first three decades of independence, accepted a pragmatic partition of what had been British Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states.

"The opposition Revisionist Zionists, who evolved into today's Likud party, sought Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema -- Greater Israel, or literally, the Whole Land of Israel."

Rocco...do you honestly believe early leaders in Israel were not planning to eventually conquer the Whole Land of Israel?

(COMMENT)

Just as there are Islamic fundamentalist that have taken ancient religious text to the extreme, so there are Hebrew fundamentalist that act similarly. However, the fact is, that the original creators did not act on those compulsions. In their Declaration of Independence, they specifically cited Resolution 181. The hostilities were opened by the Arabs.

No matter what the factions within the Jewish State wanted, or did not want, fate intervened, and the combat outcomes became what they are.

We will never know what might have happened, if the Arab States and the Palestinians had chosen a peaceful path. What we know, is that as a result of their greed and barbaric approach to the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel, the Arab and Palestinian are principally responsible for setting the conditions we see today.

(FUTURE CRIME SCENARIO)

I have seen this future crime scenario before; where Israel is accused of plotting the regional takeover that never actually took place, but was so feared, that preemptive War was considered imperative. This type of religious clairvoyance is now, and always has been shown to be counterproductive.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, georgephillip, irosie91, et al,

I believe I did.

BTW, you never responded to this post http://www.usmessageboard.com/6637015-post234.html That would explain the rest of your post.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe there were any other outstanding questions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

What people wanted to do, varies among the factions. I am quite sure - that during that period - there was quite a debate on what should be done and who to

"Joel Greenberg, writing in the New York Times notes; ‘At Israel's founding in 1948, the Labor Zionist leadership, which went on to govern Israel in its first three decades of independence, accepted a pragmatic partition of what had been British Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states.

"The opposition Revisionist Zionists, who evolved into today's Likud party, sought Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema -- Greater Israel, or literally, the Whole Land of Israel."

Rocco...do you honestly believe early leaders in Israel were not planning to eventually conquer the Whole Land of Israel?

(COMMENT)

Just as there are Islamic fundamentalist that have taken ancient religious text to the extreme, so there are Hebrew fundamentalist that act similarly. However, the fact is, that the original creators did not act on those compulsions. In their Declaration of Independence, they specifically cited Resolution 181. The hostilities were opened by the Arabs.

No matter what the factions within the Jewish State wanted, or did not want, fate intervened, and the combat outcomes became what they are.

We will never know what might have happened, if the Arab States and the Palestinians had chosen a peaceful path. What we know, is that as a result of their greed and barbaric approach to the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel, the Arab and Palestinian are principally responsible for setting the conditions we see today.

(FUTURE CRIME SCENARIO)

I have seen this future crime scenario before; where Israel is accused of plotting the regional takeover that never actually took place, but was so feared, that preemptive War was considered imperative. This type of religious clairvoyance is now, and always has been shown to be counterproductive.

Most Respectfully,
R

"The Bible contains three geographical definitions of the Land of Israel.

"The first, found in Genesis 15:18-21, seems to define the land that was given to all of the children of Abraham, including Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Midian, etc.

"It describes a large territory, 'from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates', comprising all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, as well as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, Oman, Yemen, most of Turkey, and all the land east of the Nile river."

Do you think Centcom knows?

Greater Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[irosie91]

the most difficult problem in the resolution of the issues in the middle east revolves
on a very simple issue of psychology------ PROJECTION. Jews seek----a safe harbor
and an kind of strange ISOLATIONIST approach -----in which they seek to be left
in peace-----Judaism does not involve an IMPERIALISTIC agenda. Judaism as an
ideology is not ALONE in this approach In fact ZOROASTRIANS seek the same.
The sad reality is that ---both the early christian NAZI approach include "WORLD WIDE"
"salvation" like it or not And the islamic approach is WORLD WIDE ISLAM ---like
it or not. The projection issue is that muslims cannot accept the idea that jews
do not want to rule them------and in general ---do not even want to know them

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

I have to laugh, just a bit.

"The Bible contains three geographical definitions of the Land of Israel.

"The first, found in Genesis 15:18-21, seems to define the land that was given to all of the children of Abraham, including Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Midian, etc.

"It describes a large territory, 'from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates', comprising all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, as well as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, Oman, Yemen, most of Turkey, and all the land east of the Nile river."

Do you think Centcom knows?

(COMMENT)

Oh, yeah, CENTCOM knows. On cigar night, we had many a philosophical discussions on the meaning and ramifications of these various religious texts, ancient interpretations, and the threats; as they pose the risk to peace of nonbelievers and alternative cultural subscribers.

We've seen what these fanatical believers in the mystic truths, associated with those that reveal the devine word, and find them to be most primitive in understanding the value of peaceful existence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You and I will always disagree on this, but it doesn't really matter, it was accepted by the UN. Answering in reverse order.

The mandate did not and could not promise any land. It was not theirs to give away.

There never were any 1948 borders.

(COMMENT)

The 1948 borders were accepted as part of the application for membership. It was an annex, pre-approved in UN Res 181, which was valid at the time.

The UK had the mandate. It was not a decision open for Palestinian debate.

LINK: The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

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;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

ARTICLE 1.

The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

The Mandate is an interesting document. You should read it some time.

Most Respectfully,
R

I have.

ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Jews who immigrated and receive Palestinian citizenship would have the same rights as other Palestinians to buy land and to share in creating a government. There was not to be a Jewish state. Britain tried to clarify the duties of the mandate in its 1939 White Paper but it was too little too late.

Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone moving to Palestine to obtain citizenship and to be a part of Palestine's population can also enjoy the right to self determination. Indeed, one of the goals of the Palestine Mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

However, that is not what happened in Palestine. The vast majority of Jews who moved to Palestine were imported by the Zionists not to be a part of Palestine but to populate a separate Jewish state inside Palestine.

Israel was created by foreigners, on behalf of a foreign organization, without the consent of the Palestinians, and imposed on Palestine by military force.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I will grant you, that this White Paper expresses a counter view to the position in the past and the actual actions in the decades to come. But it is made moot.

ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Jews who immigrated and receive Palestinian citizenship would have the same rights as other Palestinians to buy land and to share in creating a government. There was not to be a Jewish state. Britain tried to clarify the duties of the mandate in its 1939 White Paper but it was too little too late.

Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone moving to Palestine to obtain citizenship and to be a part of Palestine's population can also enjoy the right to self determination. Indeed, one of the goals of the Palestine Mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

However, that is not what happened in Palestine. The vast majority of Jews who moved to Palestine were imported by the Zionists not to be a part of Palestine but to populate a separate Jewish state inside Palestine.

Israel was created by foreigners, on behalf of a foreign organization, without the consent of the Palestinians, and imposed on Palestine by military force.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Homeland was made a reality.

• It declared its Independence,
• it fought a war,
• security treaties,
• borders were recognized by treaties and armistice arrangements,
• it made application for admission to the UN and was accepted,
• and it fought additional wars to secure its territories.

No matter what we say here tonight, no matter what we believe individually, there is a truth in the reality that Israel exists. It is a country that is recognized by the international community; including the five Arab nations that attacked it in 1948.

The Occupied Territories are a result of a continuous series of military, paramilitary, and foreign assisted insurgent activity. This conflict has lasted for so long that none of the traditional Occupation terminators have had time to engage.

Palestinians, frustrated that their take on history is not accepted, have formed into more than two dozen groups with a common cause to destroy Israel. They have intentionally interfered with every single peace effort which might extend normality. Each hostile action, meeting with failure results in their complaint that life becomes harder and more territory is seeded to Israeli domination. Refusing to exercise any of the legal remedies on the international scene through courts and tribunals, and to formalize their arguments in a coherent litigation effort, the Palestinians persist in pursuing violence as their preferred solution.

Without regard to how unfair the've been treated, instead of seeking equity --- in a rational way --- they seek the unreasonable - backed by hostility. The Palestinian cause becomes less and less authentic in its justification and more and more demonic ias it amplifies the "Death to Israel" mantra they have adopted under the false religious guise of Islam; and attempt to rationalize the continued conflict as a "heroic freedom fighting" effort or "resistance movement" shielding themselves by launching weapons from civilian population centers.

They have consistently demonstrated that they are not interested in the economic, industrial, manufacturing development of the territories they purport to control. There government is a cross between to terrorist factions that are at odds with each other and conduction bombing and ambushes on any target of opportunity, suicide bombing, indiscriminate rocket attacks, and complain that they should not be arrested because they are freedom fighters.

While there are many potential allies that believe the Israeli position needs to be reigned-in, they lose that support in the conduct of their anti-peace activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I will grant you, that this White Paper expresses a counter view to the position in the past and the actual actions in the decades to come. But it is made moot.

ART. 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Jews who immigrated and receive Palestinian citizenship would have the same rights as other Palestinians to buy land and to share in creating a government. There was not to be a Jewish state. Britain tried to clarify the duties of the mandate in its 1939 White Paper but it was too little too late.

Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

White Paper of 1939 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone moving to Palestine to obtain citizenship and to be a part of Palestine's population can also enjoy the right to self determination. Indeed, one of the goals of the Palestine Mandate was to assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

However, that is not what happened in Palestine. The vast majority of Jews who moved to Palestine were imported by the Zionists not to be a part of Palestine but to populate a separate Jewish state inside Palestine.

Israel was created by foreigners, on behalf of a foreign organization, without the consent of the Palestinians, and imposed on Palestine by military force.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Homeland was made a reality.

• It declared its Independence,
• it fought a war,
• security treaties,
• borders were recognized by treaties and armistice arrangements,
• it made application for admission to the UN and was accepted,
• and it fought additional wars to secure its territories.

No matter what we say here tonight, no matter what we believe individually, there is a truth in the reality that Israel exists. It is a country that is recognized by the international community; including the five Arab nations that attacked it in 1948.

The Occupied Territories are a result of a continuous series of military, paramilitary, and foreign assisted insurgent activity. This conflict has lasted for so long that none of the traditional Occupation terminators have had time to engage.

Palestinians, frustrated that their take on history is not accepted, have formed into more than two dozen groups with a common cause to destroy Israel. They have intentionally interfered with every single peace effort which might extend normality. Each hostile action, meeting with failure results in their complaint that life becomes harder and more territory is seeded to Israeli domination. Refusing to exercise any of the legal remedies on the international scene through courts and tribunals, and to formalize their arguments in a coherent litigation effort, the Palestinians persist in pursuing violence as their preferred solution.

Without regard to how unfair the've been treated, instead of seeking equity --- in a rational way --- they seek the unreasonable - backed by hostility. The Palestinian cause becomes less and less authentic in its justification and more and more demonic ias it amplifies the "Death to Israel" mantra they have adopted under the false religious guise of Islam; and attempt to rationalize the continued conflict as a "heroic freedom fighting" effort or "resistance movement" shielding themselves by launching weapons from civilian population centers.

They have consistently demonstrated that they are not interested in the economic, industrial, manufacturing development of the territories they purport to control. There government is a cross between to terrorist factions that are at odds with each other and conduction bombing and ambushes on any target of opportunity, suicide bombing, indiscriminate rocket attacks, and complain that they should not be arrested because they are freedom fighters.

While there are many potential allies that believe the Israeli position needs to be reigned-in, they lose that support in the conduct of their anti-peace activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Everyone believes this except Tinmore and he will never be convinced. Head as hard as a bowling ball and not as sharp as one.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco,

While I respond to your post perhaps you could answer a question.

What is a traditional Occupation terminator?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

Oh yeah, government-ese.

Rocco,

While I respond to your post perhaps you could answer a question.

What is a traditional Occupation terminator?

(COMMENT)

It is generally, one year from the end of hostilities (give or take a month).

As an example, the US/Coalition ended the Occupation of Iraq in June 2004, with the transfer to the Interim government.

BTW: I apologize for the unusual number of spelling errors in my previous post. The kids were waiting for me to take them somewhere and I was in a bit of a rush.

Most Respectfully,
R