What the Palestinian Authority Thinks Concerning a Palestinians State in the WB

[MHunterB]

No it isn't. Regardless of where people came from, if they consider themselves 'Americans', then that's pretty much what they are.

As to the US Civil War - a heck of a lot of the Union troops were not born in the US. There were whole units whose rank & file had been born in Ireland..... One GAR veteran who became Governor of Illinois was unable to run for President because he'd been born in Germany.

As Jose had pointed out elsewhere, not all of a people are 'natives' as rule. There are some national groups which will not accept 'foreigners' even if they are the same genetically: the Japanese, for one. There are some national groups which cannot get people to adopt babies, because the extreme emphasis on 'family loyalty' has so stigmatized 'orphan' status that such children are virtually 'untouchables' (Korea).

The presentation of Israelis as 'foreigners' and 'non-native' is an obscene inaccuracy BECAUSE over half of Jewish Israelis are GENETICALLY as 'native' as any Egyptian, Lebanese, or Iraqi. That is the case BECAUSE the Arab League nations engaged in international ethnic cleansing of their Jewish citizens.

THOSE refugees need to have their grievances addressed. The AL conspiracy to beggar and eject their citizens who were Jews needs to be addressed.

How is it anywhere near 'justice' to insist on addressing ONLY the grievances of Palestinian refugees and no other refugees?

What is the legal, moral, or logical basis on which any of us is to decide which claim to honor and which to ignore?

Just so we are all clear on this: I'm not suggesting that the Palestinians are in any way 'responsible' for the crimes of the AL cabal. I am stating that the Palestinian refugees are NOT 'unique' - and that whatever thy are seen as entitled to in remuneration, it is the same for the refugees created by AL ethnic cleansing.

If we don't treat the two groups alike, we are giving nations the 'right' to ethnically cleanse whatever groups they may target at any time. I really REALLY think that is a most awful precedent to set.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Again, where does it say that the Palestinians had to approve of Israels declaration of Independence for it to be legit ??

Once again, you DID NOT answer my question AT ALL, but of course you come out with your snarky 'I should charge tuition' remark lol.

Fail. Fail. FAIL !!

This post was about Israel's failure to acquire land from resolution 181. It was up to the Palestinians to accept the transfer of Palestinian land to Israel.

No it wasn't.

Show me where it said on Resolution 181 that the Palestinians had to give Israel permission ..... This should be good

I just did. The Palestinians rejected the partition and it didn't happen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No it isn't. Regardless of where people came from, if they consider themselves 'Americans', then that's pretty much what they are.

As to the US Civil War - a heck of a lot of the Union troops were not born in the US. There were whole units whose rank & file had been born in Ireland..... One GAR veteran who became Governor of Illinois was unable to run for President because he'd been born in Germany.

As Jose had pointed out elsewhere, not all of a people are 'natives' as rule. There are some national groups which will not accept 'foreigners' even if they are the same genetically: the Japanese, for one. There are some national groups which cannot get people to adopt babies, because the extreme emphasis on 'family loyalty' has so stigmatized 'orphan' status that such children are virtually 'untouchables' (Korea).

The presentation of Israelis as 'foreigners' and 'non-native' is an obscene inaccuracy BECAUSE over half of Jewish Israelis are GENETICALLY as 'native' as any Egyptian, Lebanese, or Iraqi. That is the case BECAUSE the Arab League nations engaged in international ethnic cleansing of their Jewish citizens.

THOSE refugees need to have their grievances addressed. The AL conspiracy to beggar and eject their citizens who were Jews needs to be addressed.

How is it anywhere near 'justice' to insist on addressing ONLY the grievances of Palestinian refugees and no other refugees?

What is the legal, moral, or logical basis on which any of us is to decide which claim to honor and which to ignore?

No it isn't. Regardless of where people came from, if they consider themselves 'Americans', then that's pretty much what they are.

Bingo!

Did the Jewish immigrants consider themselves to be Palestinians? Did they owe allegiance to Palestine? If not, they are rightly considered to be foreigners.

ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions: Alien, Immigrant, Illegal Alien, Undocumented Immigrant

Good post, thanks.

 

[toastman]

Toastman,

The term "civil war" while technically correct is misleading when applied to the conflicts that preceded the creation of the state of Israel.

The expression civil war conveys the idea of an armed conflict between two groups of native inhabitants of a given territory, country, etc... like the american Civil War or the Russian Revolution.

What happened in Palestine during the first half of the last century was not, by any stretch, a conflict between two indigenous peoples of Palestine. It was an ethnocratic armed conflict between the natives of the land and european settlers trying to establish demographic, political and economic dominance over the natives.

You can call any ethnocratic armed conflict a "civil war" because it's not technically wrong:

The Indian Wars of the 17th century between the english colonists and the american native population.

The first wars between the Dutch and English settlers and the native bantu population of South Africa.

etc, etc, etc...

It's not technically wrong but it's quite misleading.

I guess you didn't read the article.

The Mandatory Palestine civil war was fought between Jewish RESIDENTS of Palestine who have had presence in the region for just as long as the Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian Arabs

Your information is in error.

The armed conflict was fought between the native arab population of Palestine and the askhenazim immigrants/settlers the vast majority of whom had been living in Palestine for just 1, 2 or 3 decades.

Got a link for that ?

 

[toastman]

This post was about Israel's failure to acquire land from resolution 181. It was up to the Palestinians to accept the transfer of Palestinian land to Israel.

No it wasn't.

Show me where it said on Resolution 181 that the Palestinians had to give Israel permission ..... This should be good

I just did. The Palestinians rejected the partition and it didn't happen.

You have the tendency to claim you showed a link or proved your statement when you did not.

I'll ask again:

WHERE ON RESOLUTION 181 DOES IT SAY THAT THE JEWS NEEDED PERMISSION FROM THE PALESTINIANS ARABS TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

No it wasn't.

Show me where it said on Resolution 181 that the Palestinians had to give Israel permission ..... This should be good

I just did. The Palestinians rejected the partition and it didn't happen.

You have the tendency to claim you showed a link or proved your statement when you did not.

I'll ask again:

WHERE ON RESOLUTION 181 DOES IT SAY THAT THE JEWS NEEDED PERMISSION FROM THE PALESTINIANS ARABS TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE ?

It doesn't. We were discussing the land transfer thing. What follows from that is the fact that Israel did not have the criteria for a state, i.e. a defined territory.

BTW, where does it say that the Palestinians could not have a state except through resolution 181?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Some of this discussion is nonsense; an unreasonable resistance to facts already on record.

First, on the matter of citizenship and allegiance.

Article 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.​

SOURCE: C. 529. M. 314. 1922. VI. 12 AUG 1922

Citizenship was a Mandate issue. Long since taking into account all this rhetoric about alien (and the irrational or unreasoned fear of foreigners - xenophobia) versus citizen.​

Second, on the matter of transferring land.

Our friend P F Tinmore knows very well that none of the Arab States carved-out of the Mandates had any such transfer. It is not a real estate transaction. We are talking about the exercise of the "right of self determination." There is no record of transfer because that is not how any of the Arab Nations were made. The argument is nonsensical. We are talking about the properties associated with sovereignty and not ownership. You transfer ownership (acquisition), you declare sovereignty (self-determination/independence). Two entirely different processes.

Again, as has been demonstrated many times, even the Palestinians have accepted and used the same Resolution 181(II), and recognize its legitimacy. Only the rouge elements within the Palestinian multifaceted regime, still hold to the objection. Unable to conjure a state that is able to stand alone on its own, different factions still renounce the Resolution that they have made use of in the past.
​

Third, Palestinian approve to make Resolution 181(II) valid.

The acceptance of the general provisions of the Resolution 181(II), was not dependent on both parties acceptance. It could be accepted by either party. The Arab Palestinian had no control over the right of Jewish self-determination, and the Jewish had no control over the right of Arab-Palestinian self-determination.

Part I Section F; ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.​

SOURCE: A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947

Finally, on the matter of "implementation," --- the UN and the Palestine Commission speaks for itself.

"The General Assembly,

"Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

No you didn't !!! Read my question again

We're talking about acquiring territory

Read my answer again. One of the criteria for a state is a defined territory. Israel did not, and still does not, have any territory.

read my question again, you DID NOT answer it. Where does it say that Israel does not have or had defined territory??? You are just posting a rule and falsely applying it to Israel. Stop pretending like you answered my question

You have never connected the dots on Israel's lack of land.

The Balfour declaration called for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine with the Palestinians. No land for Israel was mentioned.

The mandate was to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine with the Palestinians. There was to be no Jewish state. The mandate transferred no land to Israel.

Resolution 181 was never implemented and no land was transferred to Israel.

An armistice was called by the UN Security Council to end the 1948 war. The armistice agreements mentioned Palestine many times. They called for peace in Palestine. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestinian land was mentioned and Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No land or borders were mentioned for Israel.

Transferring land to Israel and redrawing borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Our friend P F Tinmore knows very well that none of the Arab States carved-out of the Mandates had any such transfer. It is not a real estate transaction. We are talking about the exercise of the "right of self determination." There is no record of transfer because that is not how any of the Arab Nations were made.

That is true. There was no need to transfer land to the native people. They still live in their respective countries.

Palestine, however, is quite different. The natives were removed to make room for a foreign state. For that state to have any land it must be transferred by the natives to Israel.

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Some of this discussion is nonsense; an unreasonable resistance to facts already on record.

First, on the matter of citizenship and allegiance.

Article 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.​

SOURCE: C. 529. M. 314. 1922. VI. 12 AUG 1922

Citizenship was a Mandate issue. Long since taking into account all this rhetoric about alien (and the irrational or unreasoned fear of foreigners - xenophobia) versus citizen.​

Second, on the matter of transferring land.

Our friend P F Tinmore knows very well that none of the Arab States carved-out of the Mandates had any such transfer. It is not a real estate transaction. We are talking about the exercise of the "right of self determination." There is no record of transfer because that is not how any of the Arab Nations were made. The argument is nonsensical. We are talking about the properties associated with sovereignty and not ownership. You transfer ownership (acquisition), you declare sovereignty (self-determination/independence). Two entirely different processes.

Again, as has been demonstrated many times, even the Palestinians have accepted and used the same Resolution 181(II), and recognize its legitimacy. Only the rouge elements within the Palestinian multifaceted regime, still hold to the objection. Unable to conjure a state that is able to stand alone on its own, different factions still renounce the Resolution that they have made use of in the past.
​

Third, Palestinian approve to make Resolution 181(II) valid.

The acceptance of the general provisions of the Resolution 181(II), was not dependent on both parties acceptance. It could be accepted by either party. The Arab Palestinian had no control over the right of Jewish self-determination, and the Jewish had no control over the right of Arab-Palestinian self-determination.

Part I Section F; ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.​

SOURCE: A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947

Finally, on the matter of "implementation," --- the UN and the Palestine Commission speaks for itself.

"The General Assembly,

"Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

Mandate? The Mandate was concocted by Colonial Imperialists forced upon third world countries...It meant nothing but pain to the people affected. The bloody British were just that. Bloody Imperialists who will someday pay for their sins.

 

[toastman]

Read my answer again. One of the criteria for a state is a defined territory. Israel did not, and still does not, have any territory.

read my question again, you DID NOT answer it. Where does it say that Israel does not have or had defined territory??? You are just posting a rule and falsely applying it to Israel. Stop pretending like you answered my question

You have never connected the dots on Israel's lack of land.

The Balfour declaration called for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine with the Palestinians. No land for Israel was mentioned.

The mandate was to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine with the Palestinians. There was to be no Jewish state. The mandate transferred no land to Israel.

Resolution 181 was never implemented and no land was transferred to Israel.

An armistice was called by the UN Security Council to end the 1948 war. The armistice agreements mentioned Palestine many times. They called for peace in Palestine. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestinian land was mentioned and Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No land or borders were mentioned for Israel.

Transferring land to Israel and redrawing borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.

Tinmore, all of the information you are giving me has NOTHING to do with the fact the Israel legally declared independence. You provided NO evidence that says otherwise. Everything you have told me is your opinion.
What the hell does it matter if Israel was not mentioned ??

When you look on a map, and where it says Israel, ALL of that land belongs to Israel, not the Palestinians. And you have failed to prove otherwise.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Some of this discussion is nonsense; an unreasonable resistance to facts already on record.

First, on the matter of citizenship and allegiance.

Article 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.​

SOURCE: C. 529. M. 314. 1922. VI. 12 AUG 1922

Citizenship was a Mandate issue. Long since taking into account all this rhetoric about alien (and the irrational or unreasoned fear of foreigners - xenophobia) versus citizen.​

Second, on the matter of transferring land.

Our friend P F Tinmore knows very well that none of the Arab States carved-out of the Mandates had any such transfer. It is not a real estate transaction. We are talking about the exercise of the "right of self determination." There is no record of transfer because that is not how any of the Arab Nations were made. The argument is nonsensical. We are talking about the properties associated with sovereignty and not ownership. You transfer ownership (acquisition), you declare sovereignty (self-determination/independence). Two entirely different processes.

Again, as has been demonstrated many times, even the Palestinians have accepted and used the same Resolution 181(II), and recognize its legitimacy. Only the rouge elements within the Palestinian multifaceted regime, still hold to the objection. Unable to conjure a state that is able to stand alone on its own, different factions still renounce the Resolution that they have made use of in the past.
​

Third, Palestinian approve to make Resolution 181(II) valid.

The acceptance of the general provisions of the Resolution 181(II), was not dependent on both parties acceptance. It could be accepted by either party. The Arab Palestinian had no control over the right of Jewish self-determination, and the Jewish had no control over the right of Arab-Palestinian self-determination.

​

Finally, on the matter of "implementation," --- the UN and the Palestine Commission speaks for itself.

"The General Assembly,

"Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

Mandate? The Mandate was concocted by Colonial Imperialists forced upon third world countries...It meant nothing but pain to the people affected. The bloody British were just that. Bloody Imperialists who will someday pay for their sins.

Ok, the tell the Palestinians to launch rockets at the British, not Israel

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Some of this discussion is nonsense; an unreasonable resistance to facts already on record.

First, on the matter of citizenship and allegiance.

Article 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.​

SOURCE: C. 529. M. 314. 1922. VI. 12 AUG 1922

Citizenship was a Mandate issue. Long since taking into account all this rhetoric about alien (and the irrational or unreasoned fear of foreigners - xenophobia) versus citizen.​

Second, on the matter of transferring land.

Our friend P F Tinmore knows very well that none of the Arab States carved-out of the Mandates had any such transfer. It is not a real estate transaction. We are talking about the exercise of the "right of self determination." There is no record of transfer because that is not how any of the Arab Nations were made. The argument is nonsensical. We are talking about the properties associated with sovereignty and not ownership. You transfer ownership (acquisition), you declare sovereignty (self-determination/independence). Two entirely different processes.

Again, as has been demonstrated many times, even the Palestinians have accepted and used the same Resolution 181(II), and recognize its legitimacy. Only the rouge elements within the Palestinian multifaceted regime, still hold to the objection. Unable to conjure a state that is able to stand alone on its own, different factions still renounce the Resolution that they have made use of in the past.
​

Third, Palestinian approve to make Resolution 181(II) valid.

The acceptance of the general provisions of the Resolution 181(II), was not dependent on both parties acceptance. It could be accepted by either party. The Arab Palestinian had no control over the right of Jewish self-determination, and the Jewish had no control over the right of Arab-Palestinian self-determination.

Part I Section F; ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.​

SOURCE: A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947

Finally, on the matter of "implementation," --- the UN and the Palestine Commission speaks for itself.

"The General Assembly,

"Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

"Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

"Second, on the matter of transferring land.

Our friend P F Tinmore knows very well that none of the Arab States carved-out of the Mandates had any such transfer. It is not a real estate transaction. We are talking about the exercise of the "right of self determination." There is no record of transfer because that is not how any of the Arab Nations were made. The argument is nonsensical. We are talking about the properties associated with sovereignty and not ownership. You transfer ownership (acquisition), you declare sovereignty (self-determination/independence). Two entirely different processes."

Tinmore, you really need to read this part of the post, I think Rocco does an excellent job in explaining how your concept of 'land transfer' has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
I understand that it is your OPINION that the land transfer was needed for Israel to declare independence, but that is not the case. Sorry

 

[P F Tinmore]

read my question again, you DID NOT answer it. Where does it say that Israel does not have or had defined territory??? You are just posting a rule and falsely applying it to Israel. Stop pretending like you answered my question

You have never connected the dots on Israel's lack of land.

The Balfour declaration called for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine with the Palestinians. No land for Israel was mentioned.

The mandate was to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine with the Palestinians. There was to be no Jewish state. The mandate transferred no land to Israel.

Resolution 181 was never implemented and no land was transferred to Israel.

An armistice was called by the UN Security Council to end the 1948 war. The armistice agreements mentioned Palestine many times. They called for peace in Palestine. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestinian land was mentioned and Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No land or borders were mentioned for Israel.

Transferring land to Israel and redrawing borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.

Tinmore, all of the information you are giving me has NOTHING to do with the fact the Israel legally declared independence. You provided NO evidence that says otherwise. Everything you have told me is your opinion.
What the hell does it matter if Israel was not mentioned ??

When you look on a map, and where it says Israel, ALL of that land belongs to Israel, not the Palestinians. And you have failed to prove otherwise.

You obviously have not read any of the document I referenced.

What does it say on the bottom of the map of Israel?

 

[toastman]

I did do a good job, and it has NOTHING to do with anything. I have no idea why you are bringing it up.
I get it, you did your research and came to your conclusion based on that research. But your conclusion is false.

You can try till you're blue in the face to convince me that Israels land is not theirs, but I don't buy your crap, sorry

 

[toastman]

Notice how the map is entitles ISRAEL , where everything is white.

Why is it called Israel, and not Palestine ?

 

[toastman]

Read my answer again. One of the criteria for a state is a defined territory. Israel did not, and still does not, have any territory.

read my question again, you DID NOT answer it. Where does it say that Israel does not have or had defined territory??? You are just posting a rule and falsely applying it to Israel. Stop pretending like you answered my question

You have never connected the dots on Israel's lack of land.

The Balfour declaration called for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine with the Palestinians. No land for Israel was mentioned.

The mandate was to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine with the Palestinians. There was to be no Jewish state. The mandate transferred no land to Israel.

Resolution 181 was never implemented and no land was transferred to Israel.

An armistice was called by the UN Security Council to end the 1948 war. The armistice agreements mentioned Palestine many times. They called for peace in Palestine. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestinian land was mentioned and Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No land or borders were mentioned for Israel.

Transferring land to Israel and redrawing borders is a final status issue in the current peace talks.

Coming back to this post, I notice you bring this up quite often, but I fail to see what the lack of Israel being mentioned has to do with anything ???
It means absolutely nothing, and does not help your argument at all

 

[RoccoR]

toastman, et al,

You may win the argument, but you cannot change the mind of an Article 13 Jihadist and Article 10 Fedayeen. It is a tenant within the Covenant and Charter.

It means absolutely nothing, and does not help your argument at all

(OBSERVATION)

They circle of discussion:

If you use the 29 November '47 Resolution and Map, they will say that the Resolution was never implemented. You can show them documentation and live events that demonstrate implementation, it doesn't matter. You show them documentation where the Palestinian accept the legitimacy of the Resolution and use it, and they deny it.

Then they jump to "land transfer." They claim the State of Palestine was created in 1922, yet show no evidence to that supposition; claiming that all maps by the UN are defective because of the Secretariat boilerplate. They see no evidence of a real estate transfer, and use the absence of their standard as evidence of invalidity.

Then they jump to the xenophobe argument on citizenship and foreigner status. You demonstrate the clauses and mechanisms behind the citizenship and they deny the legitimacy. Jewish Immigrants are foreigners and therefore have no right to self-determination.​

And the argument becomes never ending because it is critical to their original "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition."

“The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out – man women and child."​

To modern day Jihadist and Fedayeen, it is absolutely essential that they assert:

• The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. International initiatives and peaceful solutions are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
  
• The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people.
  
• That Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate:
  • Is an indivisible territorial is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people;
  • Is part of the greater Arab homeland,
  • The Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
• That the Jewish People are Zionist invaders. That the Islamic Resistance Movement is a legitimate struggle against these Jewish foreign aggressors.
  
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

But it is just as true that they deny the Jewish People the same rights; because they consider them foreigners.

These are the tenants that prevent meaning discussion. Their philosophy is that Peace "initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." There is no real reasonable expectation that any presentation of any evidence, that casts a shadow on Jihadist and Fedayeen activities and beliefs, would be considered legitimate.

One cannot make positive inroads through diplomacy and an exchange of ideas in such a xenophobic and anti-Semitic environment.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

toastman, et al,

You may win the argument, but you cannot change the mind of an Article 13 Jihadist and Article 10 Fedayeen. It is a tenant within the Covenant and Charter.

It means absolutely nothing, and does not help your argument at all

(OBSERVATION)

They circle of discussion:

If you use the 29 November '47 Resolution and Map, they will say that the Resolution was never implemented. You can show them documentation and live events that demonstrate implementation, it doesn't matter. You show them documentation where the Palestinian accept the legitimacy of the Resolution and use it, and they deny it.

Then they jump to "land transfer." They claim the State of Palestine was created in 1922, yet show no evidence to that supposition; claiming that all maps by the UN are defective because of the Secretariat boilerplate. They see no evidence of a real estate transfer, and use the absence of their standard as evidence of invalidity.

Then they jump to the xenophobe argument on citizenship and foreigner status. You demonstrate the clauses and mechanisms behind the citizenship and they deny the legitimacy. Jewish Immigrants are foreigners and therefore have no right to self-determination.​

And the argument becomes never ending because it is critical to their original "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition."

“The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out – man women and child."​

To modern day Jihadist and Fedayeen, it is absolutely essential that they assert:

• The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. International initiatives and peaceful solutions are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
  
• The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people.
  
• That Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate:
  • Is an indivisible territorial is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people;
  • Is part of the greater Arab homeland,
  • The Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
• That the Jewish People are Zionist invaders. That the Islamic Resistance Movement is a legitimate struggle against these Jewish foreign aggressors.
  
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

But it is just as true that they deny the Jewish People the same rights; because they consider them foreigners.

These are the tenants that prevent meaning discussion. Their philosophy is that Peace "initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." There is no real reasonable expectation that any presentation of any evidence, that casts a shadow on Jihadist and Fedayeen activities and beliefs, would be considered legitimate.

One cannot make positive inroads through diplomacy and an exchange of ideas in such a xenophobic and anti-Semitic environment.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well said Rocco ! No matter what , the Palestinian Extremists and those that govern them (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) will never accept that a Jewish country called Israel exists and that the only way they will be satisfied is by victory.......through Jihad of course.

I question the mentality of any Palestinian who believes that they will get rid of Israel through Jihad. Hamas leaders have said it many times,

 

[P F Tinmore]

Notice how the map is entitles ISRAEL , where everything is white.

Why is it called Israel, and not Palestine ?

And notice what the disclaimer on the bottom says.

Politics.