Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BrooklynGuy

US softens position on Israeli settlements

143 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener
11 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Read the documents. 1962 is just complete bull****. Palestinian nationalism dates back to the 1800s, with it becoming organised in the early 1900s. And they still identified as Palestinian long before that. The Grand Mufti is evidence enough that Palestinian nationalism was gaining strength in the 1920s. His existence completely demolishes your 1962 argument.

Yes, I remember you posted something similar in the other thread. Like I said then, I guess you only read the Wiki page? Probably did a ctrl-F search for the word, yeah? I was making reference towards the actual documents, not the Wiki page. 

Take the Shaw Report, for instance: 

https://buconflict.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/shaw-commission.pdf

In that single document from 1929 the term 'Palestinian' is used 23 times. Here a few quotes for you:

Take all the documents together along with others from the era and, yes, it's a mountain of evidence.

All this is irrelevant, though. In reality it doesn't matter when nationalism is born. The right to self-determination stands on its own, not matter when its invoked.

But @ExpandMyMind, they where referring to the geographical REGION of Palestine under the British Mandate, and NOT to "Palestinians" in the currently accepted nation-state meaning of the term. 

Some of the refferenced documents DO mention "Palestinians", but - again - they where either refferring to the denizens of the Region, not a nationality. The ones that intended the term to represent a nationality where written very recently, and where not contemporary to 1967. (when Israel kicked out the Jordanian Occupiers. (and the Jordanians WHERE Occupiers in the then-accepted international meaning of the term). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

they where either refferring to the denizens of the Region, not a nationality.

Obviously, considering there wasn't yet a country, though this becomes untrue once the Mandate of Palestine began and they were given 'Palestinian Citizenship'. But there were still Palestinians, the same as there were Syrians who were Syrian before they had a country and Jordanians who were Jordan before they did - both of which also had Mandates covering their respective countries.

Your argument is terrible and disgraceful. Its only design is to try to pretend that the indigenous population with ancestors going back centuries don't have any claim to their own land. This is along with you claiming that European Jews have a right to that land based on a claim that its theirs because the ancestors of some of them lived there thousands of years ago. An astoundingly ridiculous claim. 

You also try to claim that Palestinians didn't exist and have no right to a country while Israel itself didn't exist before 1948 and it was made up almost completely of foreigners to the land. 0.5% of the world's population are descended for Genghis Khan. According to you, they have the right to invade and steal Mongolian land.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
9 hours ago, and then said:

Gee, P80, I'm beginning to get the idea that you don't like me very well.  How long have you had this gift of being able to read minds and know hearts?  You must have those gifts because you make statements as though you are quoting my words when you never can find any of them to back your assertions.  You should probably learn to relax and just let other people have their own opinions without it twisting your guts into knots.  As to the world burning, that will be the choice of the world, not me.  It doesn't take a prophet or a genius to look at the trends and see what's coming.  I think part of your angst comes from the fact that you see it coming as well and it just guts you to know I'm accurate.


Well, lets see.. A self professed American Paulinist Zionist fundamentalist who rationalises all the crimes against humanity perpetrated by his utterly corrupt nation / empire seeding chaos, death and destruction around the world.. A fanatical, zealous (blind) supporter of the whited supulchers / Pharisees reigning in 21st century Israel oppressing and mass murdering Palestinian Semites, (dis)regarding them all as terrorist lowlifes. A raging anti Islam bigot who's drooling over the thought of the complete destruction of all Islamic nations lest the vile Saudi Arabia, slandering its scripture with thesame shallow methods as similarly simplistic Bible bashers would maintain.

You support those who explicitly, pasionately deny and denounce Christ, while agressively and unrelentingly attacking those who hold him in the highest regard.. based on some skewed prophetic eschatology as well as the blasphemous Roman Catholic religious fundament of Christ being G*d in the flesh, as part of the socalled 'Trinity'..

No 'gift of any ability to read minds and know hearts is necessary, I can read words. And you have seeded this board with enough of them to know you are awaiting these conflicts / wars to bring you closer to your desired prophetic 'reality'. Fundamentalists like you, with your inverted toxic world view, are a danger to us all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Obviously, considering there wasn't yet a country, though this becomes untrue once the Mandate of Palestine began and they were given 'Palestinian Citizenship'. But there were still Palestinians, the same as there were Syrians who were Syrian before they had a country and Jordanians who were Jordan before they did - both of which also had Mandates covering their respective countries.

Your argument is terrible and disgraceful. Its only design is to try to pretend that the indigenous population with ancestors going back centuries don't have any claim to their own land. This is along with you claiming that European Jews have a right to that land based on a claim that its theirs because the ancestors of some of them lived there thousands of years ago. An astoundingly ridiculous claim. 

You also try to claim that Palestinians didn't exist and have no right to a country while Israel itself didn't exist before 1948 and it was made up almost completely of foreigners to the land. 0.5% of the world's population are descended for Genghis Khan. According to you, they have the right to invade and steal Mongolian land.

The Palestinian Citizenship offered under the British Mandate was purely that - a bureaucratic necessity for the duration of the mandate only . It was applicable to ALL residents of the geographical Mandate of Palestine - Jews and Arabs alike. It was NOT any indication of a separate Arab Palestinian nationality. (which is the point we where debating). As for a "claim on their own land",  most of the fellah where debt slaves to wealthy absentee landlords. The people tilling the land did NOT necessarily own it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

It was applicable to ALL residents of the geographical Mandate of Palestine - Jews and Arabs alike. It was NOT any indication of a separate Arab Palestinian nationality.

Why would it be? They were both the same people, regardless of religion. The same ethnicity, same culture and same history going back hundreds of years. I'm not excluding the indigenous Jews when I say 'Palestinians'. They made up 10% of Palestinians.

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

(which is the point we where debating).

No, it's not. We're debating indigenous v European invasion, not Arab v Jew. That you can't see the distinction actually explains your warped opinion somewhat.

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

As for a "claim on their own land",  most of the fellah where debt slaves to wealthy absentee landlords. The people tilling the land did NOT necessarily own it. 

This simply isn't true. Again, I have quoted actual statistics and you have nothing more than empty, baseless propaganda.

I'll do so again and maybe you'll actually read it this time?

Quote

The musha* land system had at its core collective village ownership or collective tenure of a land area, with each qualified participant in a village or other designated area entitled to shares, generally not parcels, in a particular land area. On a periodic basis of usually one, two, or five years, shares were redistributed allowing each qualified shareholder the opportunity to use the more fertile and arable lands which corresponded to particular shares within a collective unit.

p. 14

Quote

The most harmful aspect of the musha* system was its process of periodic redistribution. Most fellaheen lacked interest in improving their temporarily held land when the fruits of the improvement would be taken from them. As a result, manuring, weeding, terracing, or crop alternation was rarely employed, and the already nutrient-deficient soil was further depleted. In 1933, High Commissioner Arthur Wauchope estimated that there were between 4 and 5 million dunams of musha*- held land, mostly in the plains and valley regions.30 Even though fellaheen all over Palestine in 19 2 1 favored dividing the musha* shares into individually owned parcels, the partition of musha* shares, or ifraz, did not occur. Local notables and landowners who were most often entitled to large percentages of village-owned shares were unwilling to give up the local economic and political leverage that they maintained over a musha* community. When musha* shareholders fell into debt, they often remitted their shares as debt payment and remained as tenants on the land they once owned collectively. By 1923, nearly 75 percent of musha* lands were owned not by fellaheen but by individuals who lived in towns.31 Somewhere between 2.6 million to 3.3 million dunams of musha* land were owned by landowners resident outside of the village community.

p. 15

'The system was basically one of shared ownership, with shares being issued between the people, fellaheen or otherwise. And do you notice that between 4 and 5 million dunams were held through the musha land system and in the plains and valley regions? That's the majority of arable land in all of Palestine. Conversely, Zionists in 1948 didn't even have 2 million dunams of land.

And did you also notice that '75% of musha lands' were owned by individuals? You're trying to claim that fellaheen were the supposed main landowners and that "they were all just liars!".

Your claims regarding this whole topic are completely removed from reality. And that's putting it nicely.'

The above was my comment when I first provided this evidence for you and it applies even more-so today.

The author of the book quoted and linked to above is the single most authoritative voice on the subject. He was given access to the Israeli archives and went through something like 20,000 documents. If you want, I can send you a copy of the book? If you're actually interested in the facts of the subject of land-ownership in Palestine, that is.

--------------------------------------

In 1933 there was around 5 million dunams of land collectively owned by Palestinians (the system referred to as musha). 5 million dunams it pretty much the entirety of arable land in all of Israel. At that time, at least. Israel, after stealing Palestine in 1948, and after wealthy Zionists had spent decades and millions of pounds buying up land from peasant Palestinians, still only had 2 million dunams, almost all of it previously owned by Palestinians. Arab Palestinians, since I know that part matters so much to you.

Strange that they would spend so much time and money buying land that, according to you, no one even owned. Silly Zionists, so they were.

You can keep trying with the same old fabrications, but the documented record - from the British and Ottoman empires to Israel's own records - completely obliterates any of these wild claims you make. Like I said previously, if you want me to send you a copy of that book, let me know. I'll quote you part of the preface:
 

Quote

 

In 1972., I was eager to write a study on some aspect of Palestine in the twentieth century. A renaissance in Palestinian historiography had resulted from the June 1967 war. Many scholars and other researchers were inquiring again about the foundations» origins» evolution, and development of the Arab-Israel and Palestinian Arab-Israel conflicts. I was not averse to doing another political history, but I decided to find something in the socioeconomic-cum-political realm. Then luck struck.

While using incomplete files of the British Mandatory government’s chief secretariat, I stumbled across several dusty boxes in the hall outside of the library of the Israel State Archives. After perusing some 250 files» I discovered very interesting data about the cultivation rights of Palestinian Arab tenants. One thing led to another, and, soon thereafter, Paul Alsberg, the Israel state archivist, granted me permission to review a large number of similar dusty boxes that had come into the possession of the Israel State Archives after the June 1967 war. Apparently, files from former Mandatory subdistrict offices had remained intact, huddled in comers and basements of what later became West Bank administrative centers under the Jordanian regime. These files included records of correspondence, dispatches, reports, and memoranda from the Palestine Land Registration Department, Lands Department, Commissioner of Lands, and Survey Department. Some of these records were carbon copies of dispatches sent by and to the chief secretariat in Jerusalem and ultimately passed to the high commissioner’s office. But another portion of these records was never duplicated either for the high commissioner or for the Colonial Office, which oversaw Palestine’s affairs for His Majesty’s Government.....

…..After nine months of work on these two thousand boxes with ten to fifteen files per box, I realized that these files on land matters were perhaps one of the few chronologically complete archives for the Mandate. Many files had been destroyed by violence, including the King David Hotel blast of July 1946; others had been removed intentionally xiv • Preface by Great Britain when withdrawing from Palestine in 1948. The accuracy of these files was confirmed by the concomitant use of British Colonial and Foreign Office documentation, Cabinet Papers, Jewish Agency files, Jewish National Fund documents, League of Nations-Mandates Commission Minutes, and the Palestinian Arab press, as well as memoirs, personal papers, unpublished manuscripts, and secondary materials, This wealth of documentation became the source material for the present work. 

 

When I said that his book was the most authoritative on the subject of land ownership in Palestine, that wasn't hyperbole. He went through over 20,000 official documents.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
10 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Fundamentalists like you, with your inverted toxic world view, are a danger to us all.

Boo!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
8 minutes ago, and then said:

Boo!


Yeah, hugs & taco flavoured kisses, honeybunny.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
On 11/20/2019 at 12:34 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

No, it's not. We're debating indigenous v European invasion, not Arab v Jew. That you can't see the distinction actually explains your warped opinion somewhat.

Well, YOU may have been debating that. I was debating the origin of Palestinian Nationality, in connection with the definition of "Occupation" which - until Israel came along - involved one sovereign state occupying the territory of another sovereign state. (Hence the 'occupation' of the West Bank by Israel should not be considered an "Occupation" in the sense of the Geneva Conventions and international laws). 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, YOU may have been debating that. I was debating the origin of Palestinian Nationality, in connection with the definition of "Occupation" which - until Israel came along - involved one sovereign state occupying the territory of another sovereign state. (Hence the 'occupation' of the West Bank by Israel should not be considered an "Occupation" in the sense of the Geneva Conventions and international laws). 

When you type "The Palestinians" in quotes like you did, you're doing far more than just denying their nationalism. You're denying that they ever existed at all, which has been roundly debunked in this thread.

You've made the argument you mention above, but just read through your posts: you keep slipping back to the more general 'no Palestinians'. Besides, I have memories of having the same debate with you countless times, and it almost always came completely without the 'nationalism' qualifier.

The whole Israel defence is actually impossible to defend against any sort of scrutiny, because if you apply the same logic to the Palestinians as Israeli supporters do Israel it becomes clear that their argument holds the weight of a wet fart. The case for Israel and its Occupation relies entirely on completely rewriting history and outright falsifying facts, all the while having one set of standards for the Zionists that when applied to the Palestinians' situation destroys any legitimacy of the Israeli argument.

No Palestinian Right to Return despite some of those affected still being alive, not to mention direct descendants, yet a thousands of years old Zionist Right to Return for Jews who had no more right to the land than Australians would today's UK. 

I'm going to bow out now, Roofy. As always, it's been fun, but I can't afford go down the Israel-Palestine wormhole again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
24 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

When you type "The Palestinians" in quotes like you did, you're doing far more than just denying their nationalism. You're denying that they ever existed at all, which has been roundly debunked in this thread.

Utter nonsense, and a 'strawman' to boot ! I use the inverted commas to differentiate between the PEOPLE living in the region, and the recently emerged national desire for a NATION of Palestine. (hence a "Palestinian" in the sense of national citizenship). 

I am not denying their nationalism. I merely point out that this nationalism is a recent thing, and certainly didn't exist at the time when Israel kicked Jordan out of the West Bank ! 

24 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The case for Israel and its Occupation relies entirely on completely rewriting history and outright falsifying facts, all the while having one set of standards for the Zionists that when applied to the Palestinians' situation destroys any legitimacy of the Israeli argument.

<sigh> Tell me, which "nation" did Israel occupy when it kicked Jordan out of the West Bank ? 

24 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

No Palestinian Right to Return despite some of those affected still being alive, not to mention direct descendants, yet a thousands of years old Zionist Right to Return for Jews who had no more right to the land than Australians would today's UK. 

Ah, well there we have the problem, don't we @ExpandMyMind. The descendants of the original refugees are given refugee status, along with the right of return. 

Now then.. can you give me ANY example in the history of the world, before or after 1948, where that has been the case ? Wherein the descendants of refugees are also considered refugees  themselves ?

I'll give you a clue... there are no such examples, throughout all of the hundreds of refugee crisis's since 1948.  This rule - which was created by UNRWA - is unique in history, and ONLY applies to the Palestinian Arabs, and ONLY through the male line, in accordance with Islamic law. 

NOW do you see what I mean about laws being twisted when it comes to applying them to Israel ? 

Oh.. and your comparison with the Israeli "right of return" is jejune. Israel - as a sovereign nation - has elected to allow people into its territory based on their being Jews. The Palestinian "right of return", on the other hand, requires that people be allowed to enter ANOTHER sovereign nation, against that nations wishes. The two are clearly different.

On a minor note.. what IS the plural of crisis ? Is it crisis's, crisis', crisises, or just crisis ? (a bit like the plural of sheep being sheep ? ). 

 

 

 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

On a minor note.. what IS the plural of crisis ? Is it crisis's, crisis', crisises, or just crisis ? (a bit like the plural of sheep being sheep ? ). 

Plural of crisis is actually crises, I'll admit I had to look it up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

I merely point out that this nationalism is a recent thing, and certainly didn't exist at the time when Israel kicked Jordan out of the West Bank ! 

It existed in the late 1800s to some extent and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem shows undeniably that it existed at least 40 years before you claim and 20 years before the founding of Israel. 

Remember those White Papers I provided links to? Many of them were specifically about Palestinian nationalism that was growing in response to Zionist ambitions.

Quote

It was only to be expected that Palestinian Arabs should thus envy and seek to emulate their *successful fellow-nationalists in those countries just across their northern and southern borders. For now *of all the Arab peoples in the Middle East they were the only people, except the people of Trans-Jordan, who had not attained or were not soon to attain full national freedom

Quote

What the Arabs most desire is national independence What they most fear is Jewish domination.

Quote

Arab nationalism in Palestine

Quote

[The opinion is that] Arab nationalism in Palestine has been artificially puffed up by methods which the Government should never have allowed. Only a little firmness is needed to deflate it.

66. We understand that this optimistic outlook is widely shared in England and elsewhere outside Palestine; and it is not to be lightly brushed aside. If, indeed, it were justified by the facts, the difficulties of the problem, it is obvious, would be greatly reduced, But we are convinced it is not justified. It is founded, in our opinion, on two false.estimates. It underrates the strength of Arab nationalism throughout the country and particularly among the young.

Quote

Another reason for questioning the wisdom of trying ! to base a settlement on moderate Arab opinion is the difficulty i of finding anyone now to profess it. The moderates have always i been nationalists. They have been exposed like other Arabs l to the pressure of events and influences which have operated; 4 as has been pointed out, nationalism. to inflame and intensify their 1 And if it has never been easy for an Arab who is proud of his race to hold aloof .from his more ardent corn- : patriots, it is harder than ever now-and not only, or even mainly, because it is more ,dangerous.

Quote

They constrtuted, in fact, the headuarters 3 of the Arab nationalist movement. The Mufti, as resident. of the Committee, must bear his due share of responsibility.

The 1937 Palestine Royal Commission:  https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf

There was always Palestinian nationalism in response to Jewish expansion.

And for clarification, 'Arab nationalism' above refers to the nationalism of Arab Palestinians, in the way that 'Jewish Nationalism' refers to the Jewish Palestinians. They were already both Palestinians, which is why the need to differentiate between the two groups of Palestinians:

Quote

From the first the junior posts were filled by Palestinians, Arab and Jew.

Just in case you had planned to say, 'But it doesn't say 'Palestinian nationalism'. 

Palestinian nationalism is well documented. it can be found all throughout many of the documents of the time.

Regardless, it doesn't matter when the right to self determination is evoked. If you are the indigenous population there's not argument to be had against it, especially if the argument is coming from foreign conquerors who stole your land.

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

<sigh> Tell me, which "nation" did Israel occupy when it kicked Jordan out of the West Bank ? 

Palestine, and the people they occupied were Palestinians. In the same way that it was Palestine when the British chased out the Turks before then. You can call it what you want and say, 'Look, they're not UN Charter signatories', but that's like me continually stealing someone's money and then calling them poor. It doesn't change their identity or their right to self-determination. 

 

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Ah, well there we have the problem, don't we @ExpandMyMind. The descendants of the original refugees are given refugee status, along with the right of return. 

Now then.. can you give me ANY example in the history of the world, before or after 1948, where that has been the case ? Wherein the descendants of refugees are also considered refugees  themselves ?

I'll give you a clue... there are no such examples, throughout all of the hundreds of refugee crisis's since 1948.  This rule - which was created by UNRWA - is unique in history, and ONLY applies to the Palestinian Arabs, and ONLY through the male line, in accordance with Islamic law. 

Yes, how terrible of them to ensure that those who were ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of their legally-owned lands along with their families aren't forgotten. 

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

NOW do you see what I mean about laws being twisted when it comes to applying them to Israel ? 

I feel so sorry for them that their country's actions will not be forgotten. b****** UN holding them accountable. It's just so unfair.

And I'd say the direct descendants who lost their birthrights, with people alive still able to physically remember it being stolen from their families, have more of a claim to land than a thousands of years old claim based on a fantasy novel. The thieves are still there. Still thieving, in fact.

 

And it's crises.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm going to bow out now, Roofy. As always, it's been fun, but I can't afford go down the Israel-Palestine wormhole again. 

PS, @RoofGardenerYou're an ******* for that last reply. You knew I was trying to leave the thread and then you make the most substantive post for a while. And now I've wasted an hour going through 1930 British documents just to disprove what you shouldn't even be claiming in the first place.

You'll pay for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

 

@ExpandMyMind.

 This rule - which was created by UNRWA - is unique in history, and ONLY applies to the Palestinian Arabs, and ONLY through the male line, in accordance with Islamic law. 

 

 

 

 

This is were you fail. Palestinian Christians do not adhere to Islamic Law, yet they want the same as the muslim palestinians. Why? One Palestinian Nation with two religions who were Palestinians before Christianity or Islam.

The way I look at your reasoning by denying the Palestinian National Historical Continuity is just, and only based on your bias towards Islam.

You are mixing religion with national identity.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You'll pay for that.

This part was a joke btw, in case you're wondering, Roofy. I'm not going to just appear one day from behind the fridge door when you close it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
6 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

PS, @RoofGardenerYou're an ******* for that last reply. You knew I was trying to leave the thread and then you make the most substantive post for a while. And now I've wasted an hour going through 1930 British documents just to disprove what you shouldn't even be claiming in the first place.

You'll pay for that.

Oooops.... sorrreeeeeeeeee :(

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
6 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It existed in the late 1800s to some extent and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem shows undeniably that it existed at least 40 years before you claim and 20 years before the founding of Israel. 

Remember those White Papers I provided links to? Many of them were specifically about Palestinian nationalism that was growing in response to Zionist ambitions.

The 1937 Palestine Royal Commission:  https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf

There was always Palestinian nationalism in response to Jewish expansion.

And for clarification, 'Arab nationalism' above refers to the nationalism of Arab Palestinians, in the way that 'Jewish Nationalism' refers to the Jewish Palestinians. They were already both Palestinians, which is why the need to differentiate between the two groups of Palestinians:

Just in case you had planned to say, 'But it doesn't say 'Palestinian nationalism'. 

Palestinian nationalism is well documented. it can be found all throughout many of the documents of the time.

Regardless, it doesn't matter when the right to self determination is evoked. If you are the indigenous population there's not argument to be had against it, especially if the argument is coming from foreign conquerors who stole your land.

Palestine, and the people they occupied were Palestinians. In the same way that it was Palestine when the British chased out the Turks before then. You can call it what you want and say, 'Look, they're not UN Charter signatories', but that's like me continually stealing someone's money and then calling them poor. It doesn't change their identity or their right to self-determination. 

 

Yes, how terrible of them to ensure that those who were ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of their legally-owned lands along with their families aren't forgotten. 

I feel so sorry for them that their country's actions will not be forgotten. b****** UN holding them accountable. It's just so unfair.

And I'd say the direct descendants who lost their birthrights, with people alive still able to physically remember it being stolen from their families, have more of a claim to land than a thousands of years old claim based on a fantasy novel. The thieves are still there. Still thieving, in fact.

 

And it's crises.

Hmmm... most interesting. I'd caution, however, over confusing Arab Nationalism with Palestinian Nationalism. (and - for that matter - Islamist Nationalism)  I'd also suggest that there is a difference between an Idea being expressed by a small number of individuals, and it becoming a mass movement. 

In practical terms, Palestinian Nationalism only emerged as a mass-movement in 1988, when the PLO declared the existence of the State of Palestine. 

To quote a senior member of the PLO back in the 1970's ... 

".... "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a
Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle
against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality
today there is no difference between Jordanians,
Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and
tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of
a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand
that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian
people' to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state
with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa.
While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa,
Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we
reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even
a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977
interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)

[/i]

"

This was WAY after 1967, when Israel occupied the Jordanian-annexed West Bank. So I ask the question again: which Sovereign Nation did Israel 'occupy', when it occupied the West Bank ? (and - for that matter - Gaza). 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 hours ago, odas said:

This is were you fail. Palestinian Christians do not adhere to Islamic Law, yet they want the same as the muslim palestinians. Why? One Palestinian Nation with two religions who were Palestinians before Christianity or Islam.

The way I look at your reasoning by denying the Palestinian National Historical Continuity is just, and only based on your bias towards Islam.

You are mixing religion with national identity.

 

My comment relates to the UNRWA ruling that the descendants of refugees are ALSO refugees... but ONLY if they are Palestinian Arab refugees. This ruling has only EVER been applied to Arab refugees from Israel. 

Do you see my point about rules being bent when it comes to Israel ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm... most interesting. I'd caution, however, over confusing Arab Nationalism with Palestinian Nationalism. (and - for that matter - Islamist Nationalism)  I'd also suggest that there is a difference between an Idea being expressed by a small number of individuals, and it becoming a mass movement. 

In practical terms, Palestinian Nationalism only emerged as a mass-movement in 1988, when the PLO declared the existence of the State of Palestine. 

To quote a senior member of the PLO back in the 1970's ... 

".... "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a
Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle
against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality
today there is no difference between Jordanians,
Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and
tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of
a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand
that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian
people' to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state
with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa.
While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa,
Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we
reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even
a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977
interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)

[/i]

"

This was WAY after 1967, when Israel occupied the Jordanian-annexed West Bank. So I ask the question again: which Sovereign Nation did Israel 'occupy', when it occupied the West Bank ? (and - for that matter - Gaza). 

The White Papers distinguish between Palestinian Arab nationalism and that of the surrounding countries. I quoted only those related to Palestinian nationalism. I think the document had 35 or so references to other Arab nationalism that I didn't use.

Yes, Palestinian nationalism existed for as long as Zionists were colonising the land pre-48, but after that decimation and ethnic cleansing they weren't in a position to do anything about it until decades later. I'm not sure how you think this supports your point? It'd be like saying Kurds never had nationalism until they became organised after WW2. Nationalism still existed regardless of whether or not it was organised or they had the resources to do anything about it.

Also take into account that after the Nakba the displaced Palestinians and those left in non-Israel Palestine had nothing. I imagine hope dies somewhat after your people are ethnically cleansed from their own lands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
30 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

My comment relates to the UNRWA ruling that the descendants of refugees are ALSO refugees... but ONLY if they are Palestinian Arab refugees. This ruling has only EVER been applied to Arab refugees from Israel. 

Do you see my point about rules being bent when it comes to Israel ? 

Nonono, let us stay the course of your real issue. Religion, nationality, race, geography. 

Are Palestinians only muslims?

Are arabs only muslims?

Are semits only jewish?

You and Ex have a real good conversation going on and I do not want to interfere but I just would like to hear your short answers on the few questions.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Quote


..I think it nothing less than sickening yet typical of the usual Zionistically inclined suspects to demote the occupation of Palestinians, the native Semetical people living in the region denoted as Palestine, to mere semantics. Semantics which, as the definition of the concept indicates, are patently false and misrepresenting. Palestine was a British colony, and all colonies by definition are occupied by the colonial power. How different would the tone of these Zionists be if Palestine and/or Biblical Israel/Judah would still be a colony of GB.. We would still see offshoots of the Stern gang (aka Fighters for the Freedom of [the non existing state] Israel, Lehi, Lohame Herat Yisraʾel), Irgun (known for their blatant attacks on civilian targets) seeding chaos and destruction against 'the occupier'. The founder of present day Likud, Menachem Begin, was the leader of the Irgun terrorists for godsake. Zionist terrorists waged an intense and bloody campaign against the Palestinians, British, and even some Jews who opposed them leading up to the establishment of Israel (ie. Orthodox Jews).

Quote

Palestine (Arabic: فلسطينFilasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn; Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינהPalestina) is a geographic region in Western Asia usually considered to include Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and in some definitions, parts of western Jordan.

The term "Palestinian territories" has been used for many years to describe the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. More recently, the official United Nations terminology[7] has been used, occupied Palestinian territory[8][9][10] (OPT or oPt) increasingly replacing other terms since 1999.[11] The European Union also has adopted this usage[12][13] The International Court of Justice refers to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" and this term is used as the legal definition by the International Court of Justice in the ruling in July 2004.[14] The term occupied Palestinian territories is also still in common use.

The Palestinians were dealt a bad set of cards in 1948, and again in 1967, by the sheer influence wielded over GB as well as the USA by thesame Zionist movement. The raging bias that permeates through all but every argument in blind favor of the 7+ decades long Zionist crimes perpetuated against the Palestinian people is absolutely unrivalled, shameless. The usual play of words and pulling o/t everlasting victim card by the usual Israel fanatics notwithstanding, it is abundantly clear the present political leadership, its fundamental Zionist ideology, feverishly focuses on attaining Eretz Yisrael.. and will stop at nothing, including but not limited to the detriment of their own people let alone the Palestinians, to do so.

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

and will stop at nothing, including but not limited to the detriment of their own people let alone the Palestinians, to do so.

Just curious, P80.  Where would you draw a line where damage to the region and the world is concerned if efforts to remove the Zionist "Entity" would cause devastation to both?  Is there ANY limit to what you feel is justified to bring "justice" to the Palestinians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
9 hours ago, odas said:

Nonono, let us stay the course of your real issue. Religion, nationality, race, geography. 

Are Palestinians only muslims?

Are arabs only muslims?

Are semits only jewish?

You and Ex have a real good conversation going on and I do not want to interfere but I just would like to hear your short answers on the few questions.

 

Umm.. I'm not sure how these questions are relevant, but.... 

1) No. The vast majority (as of now) of Palestinians are muslims, but there are a small (and declining) number of Christians, Zoroastrians, and - for all I know - Pastafarians. There are no Jews in the Palestinian population of the West Bank or Gaza, other than in settlements. 

2) Same answer as above ? 

3) No, I don't believe so ? I believe that semites cover a multitude of different nationalities and cultures ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
4 hours ago, and then said:

Just curious, P80.  Where would you draw a line where damage to the region and the world is concerned if efforts to remove the Zionist "Entity" would cause devastation to both?  Is there ANY limit to what you feel is justified to bring "justice" to the Palestinians?

And then, I dont know about removing the Zionist Entity, but I am aware and we have all seen the influence of Christian Zionism on US Policy concerning Israel and the Middle East. Cases in point, the US drops out of the Iranian Nuclear deal, the movement of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the declaration that Jerusalem is Israels Capital, and the Soften position of the US on Israel settlements.  Many Americans have little or no idea how much influence Christian Zionists have with President Trump. Many of the changes in US Policy have also been influenced by Vise President Mike Pence who is a Christian Zionist.

The Vise President has brought President Trump on board and advised him on the above issues. It's  very interesting to me that this subject has not been discussed here on the forum, it may be that many forum members are unaware of what is going on at the White House and in Washington DC concerning this subject.

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

It's  very interesting to me that this subject has not been discussed here on the forum, it may be that many forum members are unaware of what is going on at the White House and in Washington DC concerning this subject.

Oh it's been tossed and turned over and over a long time ago, members like @and then ends up blowing so hard he might as well be called Monica 

~

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.