@no1marauder saidI notice you suddenly got busy. So when you get the time please give a response to the point you made : ... the Mandate itself forbids the British from doing what you claim they did i.e. give it to the Zionists. This runs contrary to the fact that the Mandate Document included the Balfour Declaration which in essence seeks to establish a homeland for the Jews. So the British were in fact keeping the terms of the Mandate by passing on land to the Jews. There was no land stealing neither did the British violate the terms of the Mandate.
Do you think repeatedly lying will somehow transform your lies into the truth?
The Mandate document, which the British government agreed to, refutes your claims; it limits what that government can do in Palestine and requires annual reports from it to be submitted to the League.
Rant all you want; it's clear Palestine was never a colony of the British Empire and th ...[text shortened]... Mandate itself forbids the British from doing what you claim they did i.e. give it to the Zionists.
Next, you are fond of stating that the Arabs did not accept the Partition so that makes it null and void. What happens in such a case is that the rejected land becomes disputed territory. You cannot reject the Partition Plan and then claim a portion is yours. Its all in the Geneva Convention.
Here is what Perplexity had to say on this topic: Disputed Territory
The portion of Palestine allocated to Arabs under the 1947 UN Partition Plan is considered disputed territory because the Arab leadership and population rejected the plan outright. They regarded the partition as unfair and illegitimate, arguing that it violated principles of national self-determination and disproportionately favored the Jewish state despite Arabs being the majority population and owning most of the land prior to the plan.
The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League, and Palestinian Arab leaders refused to accept any form of territorial division and announced their intention to prevent the plan's implementation by all necessary means, leading to civil war and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The Arab states also rejected the plan and did not recognize the legitimacy of the proposed borders, further contributing to the dispute.
Consequently, the territory assigned to the Arabs under the Partition Plan was never established as an independent Arab state, and the ensuing conflict resulted in significant changes on the ground, with Israel declaring independence and expanding beyond the UN-designated borders. The lack of Arab acceptance and the outbreak of war have left the status of the Arab-designated areas contested and disputed to this day.
@spruce112358 saidPeople have been trying for thousands of years. Somehow the Jews just keep on getting more powerful and the haters end up with the curses they pronounce on the Jews and they just die and disappear.
The Israelis have to be stopped by any means necessary
@spruce112358 saidOkay, let's play your game for a minute, even though your comment was so morally reprehensible... I'll assume it was at least partially for shock value. After all, I've "known" you for over 15 years and you never really struck me as a barbaric Nazi.
I said that Israeli Jews must cease denying Palestinians their rights. 😆
They can do that in one of several ways. But refusing is NOT an option. NOT as in "they cannot."
When someone persists in doing something they CANNOT do, then yes, their lives are forfeit. If they can be stopped without killing them (or killing anyone else) that is preferable. But that depends largely on when the perpetrators stop doing the thing they cannot do.😆
So, let play.
What are the Palestinians' "rights" what you speak of? Be specific.
The right to self-determination within Gaza? The right to control the entire Israel from the River to the Sea? The right to murder all Jews? The right to vote in Knesset elections?
Let's start by specifying the rights you think the world must enforce on behalf of the Palestinians.
1 edit
@sh76 saidMost likely he is referring to letting Gaza and the West Bank Arabs to have Israeli citizenship with full voting rights.
Okay, let's play your game for a minute, even though your comment was so morally reprehensible... I'll assume it was at least partially for shock value. After all, I've "known" you for over 15 years and you never really struck me as a barbaric Nazi.
So, let play.
What are the Palestinians' "rights" what you speak of? Be specific.
The right to self-determination within G ...[text shortened]... Let's start by specifying the rights you think the world must enforce on behalf of the Palestinians.
EDIT This:
The right to vote in Knesset elections?
Maybe he's even more ambitious and wants their property rights restored in places like Ashdod and Ashkelon.
1 edit
@sh76 saidThey have the right to vote in the Knesset* since the Knesset insists on controlling their borders. 😆
Okay, let's play your game for a minute, even though your comment was so morally reprehensible... I'll assume it was at least partially for shock value. After all, I've "known" you for over 15 years and you never really struck me as a barbaric Nazi.
So, let play.
What are the Palestinians' "rights" what you speak of? Be specific.
The right to self-determination within G ...[text shortened]... Let's start by specifying the rights you think the world must enforce on behalf of the Palestinians.
*i.e. elect representatives to the Knesset, since we are talking about representative democracy. This includes Palestinians who were excluded from territorial Israel during the Nakba.
That's it. No killing Jews. No bombings - nothing. Just that. Then this all goes away. 😆
@spruce112358 saidThat would mean the Jews will be a minority in their own country, or at least 50/50. There are countries with 10% Muslims and Christians are being beheaded. Juging from your posts maybe that is what you would like to see. Islam, both the religion and the culture is not compatible with any other faith or group of people. Islam needs a whole other planet to live on ... by themselves. No Jew is going to tolerate that. Let the fighting continue. To hell with Palestinians.
They have the right to vote in the Knesset* since the Knesset insists on controlling their borders. 😆
*i.e. elect representatives to the Knesset, since we are talking about representative democracy. This includes Palestinians who were excluded from territorial Israel during the Nakba.
That's it. No killing Jews. No bombings - nothing. Just that. Then this all goes away. 😆
@spruce112358 saidIntegrate down? Lol 🙂
So what? Lot's of countries have minority groups that integrate fine into the society.
Are you expecting the Jews to misbehave for some reason? I don't. 😆
Into the cesspool of Islamic religion and culture?
Yeah .. you would do that because your head full of ... S..it 🙂
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidYes, amazingly enough there are things in my life of somewhat more significance than posting on an internet forum.
I notice you suddenly got busy. So when you get the time please give a response to the point you made : ... the Mandate itself forbids the British from doing what you claim they did i.e. give it to the Zionists. This runs contrary to the fact that the Mandate Document included the Balfour Declaration which in essence seeks to establish a homeland for the Jews. So th ...[text shortened]... eak of war have left the status of the Arab-designated areas contested and disputed to this day.[/i]
So far, we've established that the statements you made that I objected to were false i.e. the UN did not make any binding accord that the Palestinians violated nor did the Arabs "start a war' while Zionists were peacefully minding their own business.
So now you're wandering off into another fairy tale. First off, the British did not "pass any land" to the Jews when they unilaterally withdrew from Palestine. They didn't even vote for the Partition Plan at the UN (they abstained https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp). They simply left.
Second, while Balfour and the Mandate talked of establishing a "homeland" for Jews in Palestine that phrase is vague and indeterminate. The Mandate, echoing the Declaration also states; " it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp.
At the time of the Mandate, Jews constituted less than 10% of the population of Palestine. It strains credulity to believe that "establishing a homeland" for them in Palestine without prejudicing the rights of non-Jews would mean giving them political control of almost 60% of the country including approximately 400,000 Arabs as the Partition Plan did.
The Mandate lapsed during a long period of fighting by the Zionists to gain full control of Palestine. The Zionists gained control of about 80% of Palestine by force of arms not because any legal procedures were followed.
Your other argument is utterly ridiculous. There is absolutely no basis in international law for any claim that because the majority in a nation refuse to accede to the demands of a minority that the latter control most or even any part of a nation, that the majority lose the right to self-determination. You really just made that s**t up.
As to the article you cited, even assuming that the territory was "disputed" that means the dispute must be settled by peaceful means, not that any conqueror can seize the land by military force. "The United Nations Charter bans the use of force as a tool of international relations, even when used to rectify prior injustices. Thus territory taken by force has the status of ill-gotten gains, and cannot be kept by the victor. " https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/180/
EDIT: BTW, you do realize that by the "logic" of your argument most of Israel is "disputed territory"?
@no1marauder saidYou can’t help but have respect for this cool-under-fire president.
Yes, amazingly enough there are things in my life of somewhat more significance than posting on an internet forum.
So far, we've established that the statements you made that I objected to were false i.e. the UN did not make any binding accord that the Palestinians violated nor did the Arabs "start a war' while Zionists were peacefully minding their own business.
So ...[text shortened]... IT: BTW, you do realize that by the "logic" of your argument most of Israel is "disputed territory"?
He collects intel situation situation from all these meetings with his staff, assimilating everything in his brain. He invites Iran to the White House. He has not made a final decision.. He is at his finest hour. He will wait until the last possible moment. He’s waiting on how much further Israel is going to degrade Iran’s capabilities to retaliate. And, He will wait for a phone call from someone in Iran, not Ayatollah , but is there somebody else who’s thinking….maybe this is the time to negotiate.
But as I recall, you marauder want him to tell us everything he is thinking and what his plans are. You have never responded to me on that ridiculous position of yours. When he ends up winning this thing with the help of Israel, because it is Trump that is really doing all of this, I wonder what your position will be then. Be a big guy and eat some Crow.
@no1marauder saidI sped-read all of what you just wrote, and it appears to me that you do not agree that we ought to blow Iran to smithereens. Very, very strange.
Yes, amazingly enough there are things in my life of somewhat more significance than posting on an internet forum.
So far, we've established that the statements you made that I objected to were false i.e. the UN did not make any binding accord that the Palestinians violated nor did the Arabs "start a war' while Zionists were peacefully minding their own business.
So ...[text shortened]... IT: BTW, you do realize that by the "logic" of your argument most of Israel is "disputed territory"?
@no1marauder saidYou left out the part where Palestine was a British colony, from 1918 when the Ottoman Empire was defeated, to 1948 when the UN Partition Plan came into effect. In 1918 there was NO League of Nations. There was no internationl body that could tell the British that the spoils of war was not theirs and this sentiment was reflected in the conduct of the British, who started developing Palestine, which was a backward and neglected outpost of the Ottoman Empire, and inhabited by poor subsistence farmers.
Yes, amazingly enough there are things in my life of somewhat more significance than posting on an internet forum.
So far, we've established that the statements you made that I objected to were false i.e. the UN did not make any binding accord that the Palestinians violated nor did the Arabs "start a war' while Zionists were peacefully minding their own business.
So ...[text shortened]... IT: BTW, you do realize that by the "logic" of your argument most of Israel is "disputed territory"?
From 1918, the Jews assisted the British to develop Palestine, while the Arabs were just a hindrance in this development. Both British and the Jews SPENT THE MONEY AND TIME to develop a land that the Arabs wanted but did nothing to contribute to its development.
The Jews deserved the portion their received. The Arabs are lazy backward bums, to this day. Here is some details from Perplexity :
During the British Mandate in Palestine (1918–1948), the Jewish community actively helped the British develop the region in several ways:
The Mandate incorporated the Balfour Declaration, which committed Britain to establishing a Jewish national home. Jewish leaders cooperated with the British in drafting the Mandate and in political discussions, notably through the Jewish Agency, which was officially recognized to advise and assist the British administration on Jewish affairs.
Jewish immigrants and organizations contributed significantly to the economic and infrastructural development of Palestine. They established agricultural settlements (kibbutzim and moshavim), built new towns, developed modern farming techniques, and invested in industries and commerce.
The Jewish community developed institutions such as schools, hospitals, and cultural organizations, helping modernize the area and improve public services.
Jewish labor and technical expertise were instrumental in expanding infrastructure projects like roads, railways, ports, and utilities, often working alongside or under British oversight.
Politically, the Jewish Agency worked with the British to facilitate Jewish immigration and land purchases, which were central to the development of the Jewish national home, although these activities also caused tensions with the Arab population.
Here is contribution of the Arabs :
During the British Mandate in Palestine (1920-1948), the Arab population did not generally cooperate with the British in developing Palestine in a political or national sense. The British administration developed administrative institutions, municipal services, public works, transport infrastructure, water pipelines, ports, railways, and electricity, but this development was largely driven by the British mandate authorities themselves rather than through active Arab collaboration.
Politically, the British dealt primarily with the Arab elite, such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Supreme Muslim Council, but the broader Arab population and leadership often opposed British policies, especially those facilitating Jewish immigration and land purchases. The Arabs rejected British proposals for legislative councils or Arab agencies as insufficient and resisted legitimizing the mandate system, which they saw as a betrayal of promises made for Arab independence during World War I.
Arab resistance escalated into violent revolts, notably the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, which was a reaction against British rule and Jewish immigration. The revolt led to harsh British responses, including martial law and the suppression of Arab political organizations. This conflict further hindered any meaningful Arab cooperation with the British administration in developing Palestine.
In summary, while the British Mandate government undertook significant development projects in Palestine, the Arab population largely opposed British rule and did not help the British develop Palestine in a cooperative political or national framework. Their relationship was marked more by resistance and conflict than collaboration.
@Rajk999 saidCollaboration with foreign occupiers doesn't morally entitle you to political power once they are gone. Google "Vidkun Quisling" for further details.
Here is contribution of the Arabs :
During the British Mandate in Palestine (1920-1948), the Arab population did not generally cooperate with the British in developing Palestine in a political or national sense. The British administration developed administrative institutions, municipal services, public works, transport infrastructure, water pipelines, ports, railways, ...[text shortened]... nal framework. Their relationship was marked more by resistance and conflict than collaboration.