Abbas Threatens to Resign

[Mika-El]

Finally I wish to discuss the League of Nations mandate which was incorrectly stated as saying the area of Palestine where Jordan was unilaterally created was done so as per the mandate's provisions.

It was not.

In fact the Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations and remains legally valid despite anti-Israelis who would prefer we revise history to pretend it either does not exist or does not state what it does and is no longer applicable.

In legal fact, Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations and to suggest it doesn't would suggest the mandate magically is removed from all the other treaties and laws the UN inherited for no reason other than certain political interests have said so. International law does not work that way.

The Mandate most certainly granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It never restricted it to the East Bank, ever.

The assumption settlement of Jews on the West Bank of the Jordan river is automatically illegal is untrue. The land on the West Bank is disputed. No one has an automatic right to it and the right of Israel to it comes from the Mandate. The right of today's self-proclaimed Palestinians to it came about as a fall back argument.

In fact after Israel beame a nation the Arab League never called for a Palestinian state and neither did Palestinians. In the 1950's and early 60's Palestinian leaders scorned the idea of a Palestinian state and some even called in a Zionist word.

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the meaning and validity of Article 80 in three separate cases:
1- ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 11, 1950
2-ICJ Advisory Opinion of June 21, 1971
3- ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004.

fURTHERMORE neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that TO DATE has never been amended.

In fact under international law, All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law because they remain in dispute.

This is precisely why I might concede it is a deliberate political ploy for Israel now to expand as much as they can knowing the above to strengthen their argument to land on the West Bank before a treaty is established.

The political notion many have that Palestine exists, and must be all of the West Bank is only that, a political concept. It is not a legal one. For it to become legal consent between the feuding parties needs to be arrived at.

The UN wants a Palestinian state on the West Bank. Mr. Abbas says he would accept that if no Jews were allowed on the West Bank as citizens. That would mean transfer of hundreds of thousands of Jews back into Israel.

At the same time Mr. Abbas then says, but Palestinians who want to move to Israel and become Israelis must also be allowed to.

Mr. Abbas talks of accommodating Palestinians on the West Bank and within Israel proper. Then he states he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state and does not consider compensation of the displacement of 700,000 Jews forced to move to Israel by Arab League states who illegally seized all their property an issue.

No we don't just have negotiations where one side demands and the other complies and no the UN has not acted as a neutral mediator in this matter as it time and time again has set up different standards for Palestinians then it has any other people in the world.

It is possible the Palestinian Authority and Arab League could force the issue with a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State. That is certainly possible.

The reality though is for a Palestinian state to work, it would need assistance from Jordan, Israel and the U.S. and those three countries have a vested interest in assuring stability as the extremist Palestinians who do not want a two state solution continue to seek all of Jordan and Israel and the West Bank and Gaza to now form a Muslim theocratic state aligned with the Muslim brotherhood they want taking over Egypt and Syria and ironically would be as fundamentalism as the Shiite regime in Iran.

 

[Demon of Light]

Demon of Light with due respect your definition of sovereign state is incorrect and I will try find you some good information on that so you do not think I am baiting you into a political argument.

Nothing I said was even remotely inaccurate.

In regards to your comments about Jordan, the crest of Jordan still refers to itself as a Palestinian state and it had a law of return for Palestinians until as you know about 3 years ago.

It had no law of return for Palestinians. They were just one of the few Arab countries that allowed Palestinians to gain citizenship. King Abdullah never saw Jordan as a Palestinian state. In fact, his desire was to bring an independent Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon together as one Greater Syria that he would rule. It is true that Jordan has been filled up with descendants of Palestinians who fled there decades ago, but they were not there from the start.

You made the comment, "Being a war of aggression it naturally was wrong entering the West Bank."

The above is a political statement. Under international law, Israel entered the West Bank to defend against Jordan which was massing troops on its border to invade it and because of incoming and unabated terrorist attacks.

It invaded during the Six Day War that Israel initiated. There is no indication any Arab nation was planning an invasion of Israel, just the opposite in fact. Even then any buildup was due to Israeli threats to invade Syria and occupy Damascus this having followed a major clash between Israel and Syria that Israel had deliberately provoked.

I also do not doubt that other Israeli politicians did not and were acting on the legal opinion that the West Bank was not a sovereign state and subject to a dispute as to ownership by those who did not feel as you do it automatically belonged to anyone calling themselves a Palestinian.

I would not rule out that there were expansionist objectives at play, though they could have cared less whether it was unclaimed. The Golan Heights is certainly not unclaimed territory.

Now let's deal with this myth you can have a piece of disputed land deemed a state simply because you think the UN said so.

The two relevant documents I noted were before the UN even existed.

In regards to 1, no territory or borders have ever been defined and no they do not suddenly arise and make a state because one party disputing land that has never been a nation says its a nation and the land belongs to it.

You are completely distorting the meaning of the treaty. Saying a state does not need recognition would be quite meaningless if they need to reach an agreement with other countries about the extent of their territory. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are both clearly defined territories and generally they have always had some defined territory. In the Montevideo Convention the core principle is that the existence of a state as a political reality is independent of the views held by the rest of the world. The Palestinians had territory, a permanent population, a government in control of both, and the ability to enter into agreements with other states.

At this time anyone who comes to Palestine as a visitor or guest worker and stays there two years, is considered a Palestinian according to Palestinians. Under international law this notion you live somewhere 2 years and then automatically are a citizen of a sovereign state does not exist.

That is a completely ridiculous reason to say there is not a permanent population. There are people whose families have been living there for at least decades, some centuries, and even millennia. Also, "at this time" Palestine is under occupation so that does not apply.

In regards to 3, the Olso accord was drafted to create the initial stage of evolution to create a government to be able to run a sovereign state on the West Bank. The problem is Arafat wripped it up and said it was a joke and that Palestine consisted of Jordan and all of Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza and he was its self-proclaimed leader.

You keep talking about the Palestinian Territories under occupation, but their status as a state dates back before any occupation.

That certainly plays into the equation but in itself does not establish sovereignty.

Everything you said applies under occupation rather than before occupation. To say they are not under occupation because only a sovereign state can be occupied is wrong. A treaty from the 17th Century that has later been negated by subsequent treaties is irrelevant. Under international law it is simply a state that can be occupied and a state exists if there is a government running a distinct territory with a permanent population that is capable of having relations with other states. International recognition as an independent state at any point in history is not required to be under occupation.

 

[Mika-El]

Just for the record, Fatah the largest organization in the PA as well as Hamas are dead against anything but Jordan and Israel and the West Bank being turned into a Palestinian state. Their consitutions remain self explanatory:



The Fateh Constitution (referred to, at time, as Fatah) calls under Article 12 for the:
“Complete liberation of Palestine, and obliteration of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.”
As for how it will achieve its goal to wipe Israel off the map, Fateh’s constitution, Article 19, minces no words:
“Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.”

The Hamas Charter (acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement” and at time referred to as the Hamas Covenant) states in its second paragraph:
“Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, May Allah Pity his Soul).

 

[Mika-El]

In response to you Demon:

You stated: "It (Jordan)had no law of return for Palestinians. They were just one of the few Arab countries that allowed Palestinians to gain citizenship."

Yes they had an explicit law of return. That is a fact. Go look it up. I would also be interested to know the other Arab League States you claim allowed Palestinians to gain citizenship. Please quote them.

You stated: "King Abdullah never saw Jordan as a Palestinian state. In fact, his desire was to bring an independent Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon together as one Greater Syria that he would rule."

Certainly agree with the above statement but that does not change the fact Jordan referred to itself as a Palestinian state.

You stated:
" It is true that Jordan has been filled up with descendants of Palestinians who fled there decades ago, but they were not there from the start."

Of course they were, not all were Arabs who migrated to Jordan when the British encouraged such immigration to flood the area to prevent a Jewish state from coming into existence.

You stated:

"It (Israel) invaded during the Six Day War that Israel initiated. There is no indication any Arab nation was planning an invasion of Israel, just the opposite in fact."

Lol if you want to try re-invent what happened and deny Jordan was amassing troops on its border be my guest the point is it did and Israel only attacked once it could not talk Jordan out of invading and you are well aware of the troops that were assembled in 1967.

You stated:

"The Golan Heights is certainly not unclaimed territory."

The Golan Heights unlike the West Bank was part of Syria and occupied by Israel. Israel as you are aware physically took it over as it was used to bomb and shoot Israeli settlers below continuously since 1948 and after years of being target practice for Syria, Israel got fed up and seized it. Syria claims it back to this day.


You stated:

"The two relevant documents I noted were before the UN even existed."

Yes and as I explained the UN inherited them. They didn't cease to exist because the League of Nations ceased to exist or the UN commenced.


You stated:

"You are completely distorting the meaning of the treaty." No, I am simply explaining how you have. In fact I did not invent the 4 criteria or the origins of the doctrine of sovereignty nor do I conveniently ignore chunks of the treaty that don't suit my political arguements.

Now you stated; " Saying a state does not need recognition would be quite meaningless if they need to reach an agreement with other countries about the extent of their territory."

I am not sure what the above means. Care to explain? The concept of sovereignty I explained states for a country to be considered sovereign, its territory must be recognized by other states. I am not sure what you are getting at sorry.

You stated: The West Bank and Gaza Strip are both clearly defined territories and generally they have always had some defined territory."

Actually they are not with due respect. The so called green line or pre 1967 border with Israel was never ever recogized by any Arab state. It in fact was a line drawn after the 1948 war started by the Arab League of Nations, and was the line at the time the Arab League stopped its war and retreated. Those borders under international law become recognized as legitimate borders if after a certain period of time they remain uninterupted.

To this day the Arab League of nations does not recognize those borders and in fact Syria and Lebanon as well as Libya and other Arab League nations, remain in a declared state of war with Israel so in fact the borders of pre 1967 and post 1967 have never been recognized of established by treaty and this is why legally they are unsettled at this stage.

The Resolution 242 everyone likes to quote does not define any borders and in fact gives Israel the right to safe and defendable borders.

You stated; " In the Montevideo Convention the core principle is that the existence of a state as a political reality is independent of the views held by the rest of the world."

No with due respect that is not the core principle. The core principles are the 4 qualifications for statehood. With due respect you sound like you are trying to state what you think it is intended to mean not what it necessarily says.

You stated:

" The Palestinians had territory, a permanent population, a government in control of both, and the ability to enter into agreements with other states."

The Palestinian Authority today has limited authority over an ever changing population and a limited authority to enter into agreements with other states. Even the P.A. admits that.

You stated: "That is a completely ridiculous reason to say there is not a permanent population." Its not permanent because it is subject to constant changes. The current PA is disputing the definition of who is a Palestinian because it became so open ended it has caused problems as to land disputes between Palestinians.


You stated: "You keep talking about the Palestinian Territories under occupation, but their status as a state dates back before any occupation."

No I keep referring to the West Bank as being land under dispute. I don't use the word occupation although I appreciate in a non legal sense physical presence of Israeli troops on West Bank soil are considered occupying it in common vernacular.

I also would repeat again there was no Palestinian state ever and in fact the notion of Palestinians and a need for a nation only arose in the late 1970's. Prior to that the reference was not specific to a Palestinian state at all and you only need read back quotes from Arafat and many others to know that.


You stated: "A treaty from the 17th Century that has later been negated by subsequent treaties is irrelevant."

The treaty you refer to has never been negated. The Montivideo Conference did not negate it.

You stated, "Under international law a state exists if there is a government running a distinct territory with a permanent population that is capable of having relations with other states."

Even the Palestinian Authority admits it is not a sovereign state yet. That is because it has not yet defined its distinct territory nor does it have sufficient power in its government to consider itself fully sovereign. It has control in certain areas of the West Bank only. Even then the factions in charge of those areas are not always in agreement with the P.A. as to who has final say. Land rights are unknown because the former PLO blew up the Land Title Registry meaning the current PA has no way of knowing whose land title claim is legitimate causing thousands of disputes between Palestinians as to who owns the land and suffering from Palestinians selling the same deed of land to different Palestinians over and over.

You stated; "International recognition as an independent state at any point in history is not required to be under occupation." Yes of course it is. Unless a piece of land is considered part of a sovereign state, its only considered disputed land.

I do concede in the current West Bank situation numerous nations particularly Russian, the European Union and the U.S. are pressuring Israel to concede the West Bank as a place for a future Palestinian state. The UN also says the same thing and is careful not to mention past settlements only continuing ones and it asks for a settlement freeze.

None of these nations pressuring Israel has ever stated Israeli settlements that now exist must be disbanded. They have stayed silent on that because such a decision if its made would be a political one-legally no one has authority to state past settlements were illegal and this is why the rhetoric refers to them as an obstacle for peace. From a political perspective continued settlements make peace talks impossible. However whether they are illegal or not is complex. It depends on how the title to the land was acquired. Unless it can be showed a Palestinian had a land title stolen from them the political assumption many make the land was stolen is only that-its not a legal fact.

The UN has also established an international legal precedent it knows it can't undo that anyone who squats on land for 10 years uninterupted gains rights to the land they are on.

If settlers are moved off the West Bank it would have to be with Israeli consent. The UN can not order that and terrorists have not succeeded in doing anything but empowering religious Zionist wing nuts on the West Bank.

The vast majority of Israelis have time and time again in polls said they are willing to make serious concessions on the West Bank but for them to do that they want to see serious recognition of their right to exist as a Jewish state and no they are not interested in living next door to people who continue to have charters that state they must be wiped out.

Israelis have said yes they want peace and even are willing to put up with huge internal conflict with settlers forced to move back into pre 1967 Israel but no they are not going to do that if it just means creating a state from which a new series of terror attacks is to be launched to wipe them out.

From pragmatic perspective the Palestinian Authority is a de facto government in waiting.

 

[Mika-El]

At the current time I stated who is a Palestinian is a very loose definition and I will explain why.

The United Nations defines a"Palestinian refugee as follows: ".. persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict" This definition of a refugee also covers " the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948."

No other refugee in the world is defined as including the descendants of the actual displaced persons, only the displaced persons themselves.

So the definition for refugee unless you are Palestinian is:

” owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

the source of the above two definitions can be found for example at:



Sources:

1. UNRWA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East UNRWA)- Palestine Refugee-


2. Error! (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR) –The “Normal” defenition for refugee-

It was Yasir Arafat who then again changed the definition and said anyone who lives in Palestine for two years is Palestinian.

The double standard when defining refugee including the silence of the UN when 900,000 Jewish refugees were expelled from the Arab League of Nations forcing 700,000 of them to flee to Israel, which is about 100,000 more then the actual number of alleged displaced Palestinians, speaks for itself.

 

[Mika-El]

You can check the statistics yourself but today More than 50% of Palestinian refugees liv in Jordan, about 38% on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. About 7.5% are in Syria and another 7.5% in Lebanon. Approximately 260,000 internally displaced Palestinians are said to reside in Israel. The rest would live in other countries of the world.

A total of 4 million refugees are now registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). 33% of them are said to live within 59 UNRWA refugee camps on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Those facts are publically distributed by UNRWA.

 

[Mika-El]

It is also a public fact that in 1920 Britain defined Palestine as including what is today Israel, parts of Syria and Lebanon, and today's Jordan and the West Bank and then unilaterally changed that definition in 1922 to not include TransJordan (now Jordan) which it unilaterally invented and made clear prohibited the settling of any Jews in that area in direct contradiction of the League of Nations mandate.

The British felt the Balfour declaration bound them to promise a homeland for Jews in Palestine but did not prevent them from shrinking Palestine by 80% to exclude TransJordan.

 

[Mika-El]

In the original charter of the PLO in 1964 it stated and I quote:

The original PLO Charter, elaborated in 1964, states in article 24 that:

“This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”

source: Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations - Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations

It was only in 1968 the PLO then rewrote its charter and began demanding the West Bank and Gaza in addition to Israel as a Palestinian state.

It was Arafat himself who openly stated after walking away from Oslo that the PLO's mandate was and would always be the taking back of Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza and his belief in Jordan belonging to Palestine was made clear after the unsuccessful Black Sabbath uprising when he tried to assassinate King Hussein of Jordan and seize Jordan.

 

[Mika-El]

Now let's deal with where 4 million Palestinian refugees came from shall we?

According to the official Ottoman Turk census figures of 1882, in the entire Land of Israel, there were only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab.

By 1922, there were said to be 650,000 Arabs, a450% increase in 40 years.

By 1938 that number was said to be 1 million or an 800% increase in only 56 years.

Do the math. Most of the people who today claim to be descended from Palestinians are in fact descended from Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other Arabs who move to Palestine.

In the world of revisionism only Jews came from outside Palestine. The above people Muslims who also came to Palestine are Palestinian but Jews who came during the same time period are not. Why, because an Arab or Muslim us automatically a Palestinian if they move there, a Jew is not using this double standard that is still used to this day which says anyone who moves to the West Bank and stays there for two years is Palestinian as long as they are a Muslim or Arab.

 

[Mika-El]

Yasir Arafat was born in Egypt. He was Egyptian not Palestinian.

Today the Arab world consists of 21 sovereign countries(more than any other single people on earth) and constitutes a land mass 800 times the size of of Israel.

Now we discuss the creation of yet another Arab nation. You think that really will be the end of it? You think Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah Hawks, Intifada, Jihad, will all disarm and go into the sunset if Abbas gets a state on the West Bank?

Mr. Abbas supposedly portrayed as a moderator wrote his thesis at an Egyptian university claiming the holocaust was a hoax. He is someone who is on record as stating a Jew will never be allowed to live in a Palestinian state on the West Bank and he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Just why would I as an Israeli leader be willing to take on hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers and tell them to move back into pre 1967 Israel? What basis do I have to say this will create peace?

Who is going to guarantee all the terrorists disarm and live peacefully next to Israel? Who?

Many of the anti Israelis on this forum believe Israel should never exist as a Jewish state. You think they will support such a thing? Really?

I have heard the dialogue. I am a moderate willing to talk peace but I also am no fool-before I talk peace I need to see someone in the positition to be able to implement it on the other side.

Right now what I read and hear are ultimatums, i.e., Israel must do this...Israel must do that... problem is people pointing the finger at and trying to lecture Jews on what they must do has been going on over 2,500 years and all that finger pointing to us is just the same old double standard coming from people not willing to do what they demand of us.

Some of us Jews believe if we denounce Israel we will be suddenly accepted by the finger pointers. Others like me don't and look at the finger pointing as a age old exercise of patronization based on the assumption we are inferior and need to be put in our place.

 

[Degreez]

In regards to 1, your attempt to revise history and suggest the Belfour Declaration never mentioned the creation of an Israeli state is absurd.

I gave you the quotation right there that said why the did not use the word 'state'. You are purposely choosing to ignore this, despite it being right in front of your face.
The record of discussions that led up to the final text of the Balfour Declaration clarifies some details of its wording. The phrase "national home" was intentionally used instead of "state" because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet.
Does the Balfour Declaration call for an Israeli state? Absolutely not. It calls for a Jewish National Home to be founded IN Palestine. You are distorting history to suit your agenda.

In regards to 2, Actually Transjordan took over more than 80% of the land earmarked for a Jewish state by the League.

First, there was never once the mention of a Jewish state in either the Balfour Declaration or the British Mandate of Palestine. Attempting to suggest there is, however, is a complete ignorant assertion devoid of historical relevance.

After the Balfour Declaration the World Zionist Organization issued this statement:
The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law." ... ...It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent "Jewish State" But this is wholly fallacious. The "Jewish State" was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl's first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme - the only programme in existence.

Second, the 80% figure is a complete fabrication, as all the area west of the Jordan River was never even a part of the British Mandate of Palestine, hence being completely irrelevant to the question of the Jewish National Home.

In regards to 3, the fact that both of Feisal's sons were placed as puppet monarchs in Iraq and Jordan as pay back to Faisal for assisting the British during World War One against the Ottoman Empire does not in any way change the fact that Jordan was created as a Palestinian state.

How was it created as a "Palestinian state"? Palestinians had no part in the creation of Transjordan. And it wasn't Feisal's sons, it was Husayn bin Ali's sons, who all were from Mecca, not Palestine. According to your logic, Syria is a Palestinian state and so is Iraq. That is absurd and ridiculous.

In regards to 4, no the fact that the UN rendered some declarations of intent, does not mean there is no outstanding legal issue as to land ownership rights. That is not how either domestic or international law works.

Yes, it does, no matter of your opinion on the matter. UN Security Council Resolutions are binding upon all member states, as each nation agrees to the UN Charter when the apply for admission into the United Nations. Part of the agreement is Article 25, which states that member nations "agree to accept and carry out" decisions by the Security Council. Security Council Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied during the Six Day War. Has Israel withdrew from these territories? No, it absolutely has not. Is Israel violating the UN Charter? Yes. Is Israel's settlement policy a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention? Yes.

In regards to 5, the Israel as Nazi comparison only shows your partisan bias and true political agenda.

You are the one who is absolutely ignorant on what constitutes occupation. Nazi Germany occupied Poland, Hungary, and many other sovereign nations. Israel occupied the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights. These are not comparisons. They are facts.

 

[Mika-El]

Degreez you stated:

"I gave you the quotation right there that said why the did not use the word 'state'. You are purposely choosing to ignore this, despite it being right in front of your face."

No I am not. I was directly challenging the arguement that using the word "national home" did not mean state. I repeat again that is absurd. To say the words "national home" and the word "state" they did not use were deliberate is absurd. What do you think a national home is? What do you think the word NATIONAL means?

The arguement you repeat that the phrase "national home" was intentionally used instead of "state" because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet is a theory not a fact. Its a theory that was invented after the fact by those denying the Belfour declaration meant a state. To buy into that arguement one has to believe NATIONAL and HOME do not refer to state. Sorry but I find such an inference blatant politically partisan revisionism after the fact.

If anything the Belfour declaration deliberately avoided mentioning a state for Palestinians because it used the terms "civil" and "religious" in regards to their rights, not the word national rights.

If you want to argue "national" does not refer to a nation, and that a nation is not a state, be my guest.

I am not distorting what it said you are. You are the one pretending "NATIONAL" does not refer to nation and then that nation and state do not mean the same thing.

As well your argument that when ZIonists refered to a home in Palestine they did not mean state, also speaks for itself.

So is the comment you made in one breath that Zionists only wanted a homeland but not a state, i.e., The "Jewish State" was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl's first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme - the only programme in existence."

You again revise history. This latest attempt to suggest Zionists did not want a state and accepted the Basle programme and therefore no state also speaks for itself. Its simply not true. You not I are trying to rewrite history.

Now you state " the 80% figure (the area of Transjordan" is a complete fabrication, as all the area west of the Jordan River was never even a part of the British Mandate of Palestine..."

You again revise history. Of course it was. Britain's maps in 1920 showed it was. Your attempt to revise history yet again is noted.

You asked, "How was it (TransJordan)" created as a "Palestinian state"?

Simple, it was taken from 80% of the land defined as Palestine by the League of Nations Mandate. Your pretending TransJordan was never part of that mandate is convenient and selective but no Transjordan didn't just appear out of nowhere.

Yous tated: "Palestinians had no part in the creation of Transjordan." Of course not it was a classic move by France and Britain to divide up the Middle East into colonies of control. No one said it was the idea of Palestinians.

According to your logic, Syria is a Palestinian state.

Syria for years was referred to as Palestine. In fact the areas known today as Israel and Jordan later were referred to as Palestine. You really do need to go back and review history and stop trying to ignore the chunks of it that do not suit your convenience.

You stated: "UN Security Council Resolutions are binding upon all member states, as each nation agrees to the UN Charter when the apply for admission into the United Nations. Part of the agreement is Article 25, which states that member nations "agree to accept and carry out" decisions by the Security Council. Security Council Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied during the Six Day War. Has Israel withdrew from these territories? No, it absolutely has not. Is Israel violating the UN Charter? Yes. Is Israel's settlement policy a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention? Yes."

First of all you are wrong. Dead wrong. UN resolutions are not legally binding. Whether they could be enforced in an international court is doubtful and this is why it has never happened. They are voluntary. They can't be forced on nations and this is precisely why the Arab League of Nations and nations such as Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, have ignored them not just Israel.

There is also another interpretation of UN Resolution 242 that contends Israel is not obliged to withdraw to unsafe borders and until it can negotiate safe borders it has no obligation to place itself in a position of exposure to on-going terror attacks. Even the PA has conceded that fact.

Now you stated:

"You are the one who is absolutely ignorant on what constitutes occupation."

Try debate the issues and refrain from the name calling. The name calling is childish. Just stick to the issues. The fact you might disagree with my opinions does not mean you should call me ignorant or vcie versa. That kind of name calling proves nothing other than you ran out of substantial arguments.

You stated:

"Nazi Germany occupied Poland, Hungary, and many other sovereign nations. Israel occupied the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights. These are not comparisons. They are facts."

Of course they are comparisons. You have now used them twice as comparisons and to equate them as being the same.

You are of course trying to equate Israel with Nazi Germany. The Israelis are Nazis baiting is no better than the one calling me ignorant.

Israel did not invade the Golan Heights as Germany did Poland. Poland was not lobbying rockets into Germany, shooting at German farmers and sending terrorists in to attack German citizens before Germany invaded and you are well aware of that.

When Israel went into the West Bank it was as a direct result of repeated attacks by fedayeen from Jordanian controlled land on the West Bank and in particular East Jerusalem and the West Bank, particularly around Ramalah and Bethlehem as well as Hebron.

Again your analogy that Israel went into the West Bank because they are Nazis and had no reason to and did it because they had an agenda to wipe out all the Arabs of the Middle East speaks for itself.

You want to refer to Israel as a Nazi state go ahead. It just renders you a shrill for a politically partisan cause. If Israel was in fact no different then Nazi Germany it would have long ago gassed all the millions of Palestinians you suggest it wants to rather then allow them to multiply at a far higher rate then Israeli Jews both within Israel and external to it in areas of land it now controls.

If Israel was interested in genocide it would have not spend millions on infrastructure in Gaza for Palestinians which Hamas decided to blow up and it would have not signed an Oslo accord agreeing to give 98% of the land Arafat asked for in exchange for peace.

If you have something sunstantial to argue please do so. If you want to revert to Israelis are Nazis go do it with someone else please.

 

[Mika-El]

The name Palestine, which was inb fact located on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean comes from the word Philistine.

In fact the Greeks caled this geographic area and that is all it was, "Syrian Philistine".

When the Romans conquered it, they referred to this region as Judaea until Emperor Hadrian officially stated it as " Provincia Judaea" and annexed it to Syria under Augustus' rule. It was then known as the Provincia Syria Palaestina.

The word Palestine originates from "Plesheth" which comes from " palash " and means migratory. The original Philistines were not even Arabs or Jews, they came from Asia Minor and Greece and never spoke Arabic.

According to the Bible and other histroic references, the Philistines were said to have come the southern coast of Israel during different time periods, i.e., one group is believed to have arrived during the i pre-patriarchal period time period where it is said they settled south of Beersheba (today in Israel) and this is where they were reported to come into conflict with tribes of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael ( who would go on supposedly to be the father of Islam).

Other Phillistines were said to have come from Crete after losing a battle whereby they attempted to invade Egypt under the reign of Pharoah Rameses III which would be roughly 1194 BCE.

They are said to have seized the southern coastal area, (today called, Gaza, Ashkalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat).

Then according to historians during the Persian and Greek periods, other foreign settlers - from the Mediterranean islands allegedly over ran these Philistine settlements.

We know by after the turn of the fifth century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus regularly referred to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean as "the Philistine Syria".

It was in AD 135, that renamed the area "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is then derived.

Then we know at the end of the fourth century, Palestine was divided into the "First", "second" and "Third" three Palestines.

When the Christian Crusaders arrived they employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of all "three Palestines."

When the crusaders were defeated Palestine was no longer used as an official name for the geographic area. What we do know though is the name, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River, i.e., Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and the West Bank and parts of the Sinai including today's Gaza.

During the Ottoman Empire's period of occupation (1517-1917) all this Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul at a distance.

When the British then showed up the area consisted of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and a chunk of the Sinai.

In 1920 the British maps made that clear and this is why the British and French sat down and decided to carve out a Syrian and Lebanese state for the French to control and a TransJordan and Iraq for Britain to rule.

According to Winston Churchill's memoirs, TransJordan was deliberately removed from Palestine because the British new they were bound to set up a Jewish state in Palestine and so they thought if they shrunk the size of Palestine and gave the vast majority of it to Arabs it would placate them and pay them back for supporting Britain during WW1 against Turkey.

Churchill admits it was created as a beachhead to prevent expansion of Jews to the West Palestine and be used as a base to encourage migration of non Palestinians to Palestine.

In fact more non Palestinian Arabs came to the remaining Palestine (the are today known as Israel) then Israelis and so in fact the native Palestinians who were Arabs were displaced by non Palestinian Arabs.

However in the revision of history anyone who came to Palestine who was Muslim is a Palestinian but if they were a Jew they are not.

As well the story goes Jews stole land from Palestinians. In fact the majority of land was owned by absentee landowners who were friends of the Sultan of Oman and these landowners used itinerant Palestinian Muslims as serfs charging them exorbitant taxes and having them drafted into the Turkish army.

When Jews came they bought land no one wanted and when they began restoring it from swamp land to manageable farms non Palestinian Arabs bolstered by their success began coming. The British then flooded the area with non Palestinian Arabs in an effort to prevent Zionists from starting a country in Palestine.

Chuchill's memoirs make that clear and the British decision to sit back time and time again while Arab nationalists attacked and wiped out Jews and do nothing when they were supposed to be protecting Jews and helping them start a homeland speaks for itself.

So do the memoirs of Churchill, Belfour, Lord Samuel.

People can try revise history to pretend today's Palestinians all originate from the dirt poor intinerant Muslims who lived there but its a fabrication. The vast majority are Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Gulf Arabs who moved there and displaced far more Palestinians then Jews did.

The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina".

 

[Mika-El]

Sayyid Abdullag the first King of TransJordan became so after he agreed with the British not to go and help his brother Faisal who was King of Syria and engaging in a war to get rid of the French.

In return for the French getting Syria and Lebanon as monarch free colonies, Abdullah was given TransJordan and Faisal Iraq. They were the sons of Ali. I referred to them earlier as sons of Faisal that was a typing error.

The fact that these people were not Palestinian did not mean Abdullah was not given 80% of the area mandated for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. TransJordan was unilaterally taken out of Palestine and created as a Jew free protectorate by Britain in direct contradiction to the Leage Mandate and when the League figured out Churchill's plan in creating TransJordan was not to try postpone a Jewish country but was a permanent move to create a Jew free state, it moved to annul the protectorate and called a meeting to do just that when WW2 broke out.

Then after the War, Britain unilaterally declared Jordan as a state and the Jews at the time were offered less than galf of the remaining 23% of Palestine for a Jewish state with the other half for a second Palestinian state and the Arab League said no, that remaining 23% could never be Jewish, not even 1%. The Zionists agreed to the small area the Belfour declaration proposed but even that was not good enough for the Arab League who then declared war on jewish settlers and said they would rid the Middle East of them.

The green line which came after the Israeli war of indpendence was the armistice line drawn by a green pen as the point where the Arab League Armies ran away and abandon the war. It is today referred to as the pre 1967 border.

Ironically it is bigger then what the Zionists indicated they were willing to accept.

However the fact remains that the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon consist of more than 80% of Palestine.

The reality is we are disputing a tiny fraction of Palestine the Arab nations were not able to get their hands on and are still upset about.

What this comes down to is a battle to not recognize anything but a Muslim state where Israel is today for Hamas, Hezbollah and all the Palestinian extremists who feel Jordan and Israel as well as the West Bank should now be part of a Muslim theocracy aligned with Syria and Iran.

This is why Egypt and Jordan do not support Hamas or Hezbollah.

Hamas is a faction of the Muslim Brotherhood which seeks to take over Egypt as well. Complicating matters is the Muslim Brotherhood has two factions, one pro Syrian which currently controls Hamas in Gaza and another anti-Syrian because it is anti-Shiite and anti Alawite (the minority controlling Syria)
and so the Hamas we see today in gaza could implode internally in a moment's notice.

Either way it is just as m uch a destabilizing force to Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt as it is Israel. and this is why in negotiations for a peace settlement Jordan will be front and centre. It can't approve a state that will be used to attack it and remove its leader who many Palestinians still hate for the Black Sabbath uprising.

 

[donsutherland1]

The green line which came after the Israeli war of indpendence was the armistice line drawn by a green pen as the point where the Arab League Armies ran away and abandon the war. It is today referred to as the pre 1967 border.

Also, all of the armistice agreements in which the "Green Line" was set forth made crystal clear that the line was solely a demarcation line aimed at separating the opposing armies. It was not intended to serve as a border.

 

[justabubba]

Degreez you stated:

"I gave you the quotation right there that said why the did not use the word 'state'. You are purposely choosing to ignore this, despite it being right in front of your face."

No I am not. I was directly challenging the arguement that using the word "national home" did not mean state. I repeat again that is absurd. To say the words "national home" and the word "state" they did not use were deliberate is absurd. What do you think a national home is? What do you think the word NATIONAL means?

The arguement you repeat that the phrase "national home" was intentionally used instead of "state" because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet is a theory not a fact. Its a theory that was invented after the fact by those denying the Belfour declaration meant a state. To buy into that arguement one has to believe NATIONAL and HOME do not refer to state. Sorry but I find such an inference blatant politically partisan revisionism after the fact.

If anything the Belfour declaration deliberately avoided mentioning a state for Palestinians because it used the terms "civil" and "religious" in regards to their rights, not the word national rights.

If you want to argue "national" does not refer to a nation, and that a nation is not a state, be my guest.

I am not distorting what it said you are. You are the one pretending "NATIONAL" does not refer to nation and then that nation and state do not mean the same thing.

As well your argument that when ZIonists refered to a home in Palestine they did not mean state, also speaks for itself.

So is the comment you made in one breath that Zionists only wanted a homeland but not a state, i.e., The "Jewish State" was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl's first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme - the only programme in existence."

You again revise history. This latest attempt to suggest Zionists did not want a state and accepted the Basle programme and therefore no state also speaks for itself. Its simply not true. You not I are trying to rewrite history.

Now you state " the 80% figure (the area of Transjordan" is a complete fabrication, as all the area west of the Jordan River was never even a part of the British Mandate of Palestine..."

You again revise history. Of course it was. Britain's maps in 1920 showed it was. Your attempt to revise history yet again is noted.

You asked, "How was it (TransJordan)" created as a "Palestinian state"?

Simple, it was taken from 80% of the land defined as Palestine by the League of Nations Mandate. Your pretending TransJordan was never part of that mandate is convenient and selective but no Transjordan didn't just appear out of nowhere.

Yous tated: "Palestinians had no part in the creation of Transjordan." Of course not it was a classic move by France and Britain to divide up the Middle East into colonies of control. No one said it was the idea of Palestinians.

According to your logic, Syria is a Palestinian state.

Syria for years was referred to as Palestine. In fact the areas known today as Israel and Jordan later were referred to as Palestine. You really do need to go back and review history and stop trying to ignore the chunks of it that do not suit your convenience.

You stated: "UN Security Council Resolutions are binding upon all member states, as each nation agrees to the UN Charter when the apply for admission into the United Nations. Part of the agreement is Article 25, which states that member nations "agree to accept and carry out" decisions by the Security Council. Security Council Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied during the Six Day War. Has Israel withdrew from these territories? No, it absolutely has not. Is Israel violating the UN Charter? Yes. Is Israel's settlement policy a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention? Yes."

First of all you are wrong. Dead wrong. UN resolutions are not legally binding. Whether they could be enforced in an international court is doubtful and this is why it has never happened. They are voluntary. They can't be forced on nations and this is precisely why the Arab League of Nations and nations such as Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, have ignored them not just Israel.

There is also another interpretation of UN Resolution 242 that contends Israel is not obliged to withdraw to unsafe borders and until it can negotiate safe borders it has no obligation to place itself in a position of exposure to on-going terror attacks. Even the PA has conceded that fact.

Now you stated:

"You are the one who is absolutely ignorant on what constitutes occupation."

Try debate the issues and refrain from the name calling. The name calling is childish. Just stick to the issues. The fact you might disagree with my opinions does not mean you should call me ignorant or vcie versa. That kind of name calling proves nothing other than you ran out of substantial arguments.

You stated:

"Nazi Germany occupied Poland, Hungary, and many other sovereign nations. Israel occupied the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights. These are not comparisons. They are facts."

Of course they are comparisons. You have now used them twice as comparisons and to equate them as being the same.

You are of course trying to equate Israel with Nazi Germany. The Israelis are Nazis baiting is no better than the one calling me ignorant.

Israel did not invade the Golan Heights as Germany did Poland. Poland was not lobbying rockets into Germany, shooting at German farmers and sending terrorists in to attack German citizens before Germany invaded and you are well aware of that.

When Israel went into the West Bank it was as a direct result of repeated attacks by fedayeen from Jordanian controlled land on the West Bank and in particular East Jerusalem and the West Bank, particularly around Ramalah and Bethlehem as well as Hebron.

Again your analogy that Israel went into the West Bank because they are Nazis and had no reason to and did it because they had an agenda to wipe out all the Arabs of the Middle East speaks for itself.

You want to refer to Israel as a Nazi state go ahead. It just renders you a shrill for a politically partisan cause. If Israel was in fact no different then Nazi Germany it would have long ago gassed all the millions of Palestinians you suggest it wants to rather then allow them to multiply at a far higher rate then Israeli Jews both within Israel and external to it in areas of land it now controls.

If Israel was interested in genocide it would have not spend millions on infrastructure in Gaza for Palestinians which Hamas decided to blow up and it would have not signed an Oslo accord agreeing to give 98% of the land Arafat asked for in exchange for peace.

If you have something sunstantial to argue please do so. If you want to revert to Israelis are Nazis go do it with someone else please.

we have the Cherokee nation ... but that does not make the Cherokee reservation sovereign and apart from the USA

 

[justabubba]

The name Palestine, which was inb fact located on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean comes from the word Philistine.

In fact the Greeks caled this geographic area and that is all it was, "Syrian Philistine".

When the Romans conquered it, they referred to this region as Judaea until Emperor Hadrian officially stated it as " Provincia Judaea" and annexed it to Syria under Augustus' rule. It was then known as the Provincia Syria Palaestina.

The word Palestine originates from "Plesheth" which comes from " palash " and means migratory. The original Philistines were not even Arabs or Jews, they came from Asia Minor and Greece and never spoke Arabic.

According to the Bible and other histroic references, the Philistines were said to have come the southern coast of Israel during different time periods, i.e., one group is believed to have arrived during the i pre-patriarchal period time period where it is said they settled south of Beersheba (today in Israel) and this is where they were reported to come into conflict with tribes of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael ( who would go on supposedly to be the father of Islam).

Other Phillistines were said to have come from Crete after losing a battle whereby they attempted to invade Egypt under the reign of Pharoah Rameses III which would be roughly 1194 BCE.

They are said to have seized the southern coastal area, (today called, Gaza, Ashkalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat).

Then according to historians during the Persian and Greek periods, other foreign settlers - from the Mediterranean islands allegedly over ran these Philistine settlements.

We know by after the turn of the fifth century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus regularly referred to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean as "the Philistine Syria".

It was in AD 135, that renamed the area "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is then derived.

Then we know at the end of the fourth century, Palestine was divided into the "First", "second" and "Third" three Palestines.

When the Christian Crusaders arrived they employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of all "three Palestines."

When the crusaders were defeated Palestine was no longer used as an official name for the geographic area. What we do know though is the name, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River, i.e., Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and the West Bank and parts of the Sinai including today's Gaza.

During the Ottoman Empire's period of occupation (1517-1917) all this Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul at a distance.

When the British then showed up the area consisted of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and a chunk of the Sinai.

In 1920 the British maps made that clear and this is why the British and French sat down and decided to carve out a Syrian and Lebanese state for the French to control and a TransJordan and Iraq for Britain to rule.

According to Winston Churchill's memoirs, TransJordan was deliberately removed from Palestine because the British new they were bound to set up a Jewish state in Palestine and so they thought if they shrunk the size of Palestine and gave the vast majority of it to Arabs it would placate them and pay them back for supporting Britain during WW1 against Turkey.

Churchill admits it was created as a beachhead to prevent expansion of Jews to the West Palestine and be used as a base to encourage migration of non Palestinians to Palestine.

In fact more non Palestinian Arabs came to the remaining Palestine (the are today known as Israel) then Israelis and so in fact the native Palestinians who were Arabs were displaced by non Palestinian Arabs.

However in the revision of history anyone who came to Palestine who was Muslim is a Palestinian but if they were a Jew they are not.

As well the story goes Jews stole land from Palestinians. In fact the majority of land was owned by absentee landowners who were friends of the Sultan of Oman and these landowners used itinerant Palestinian Muslims as serfs charging them exorbitant taxes and having them drafted into the Turkish army.

When Jews came they bought land no one wanted and when they began restoring it from swamp land to manageable farms non Palestinian Arabs bolstered by their success began coming. The British then flooded the area with non Palestinian Arabs in an effort to prevent Zionists from starting a country in Palestine.

Chuchill's memoirs make that clear and the British decision to sit back time and time again while Arab nationalists attacked and wiped out Jews and do nothing when they were supposed to be protecting Jews and helping them start a homeland speaks for itself.

So do the memoirs of Churchill, Belfour, Lord Samuel.

People can try revise history to pretend today's Palestinians all originate from the dirt poor intinerant Muslims who lived there but its a fabrication. The vast majority are Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Gulf Arabs who moved there and displaced far more Palestinians then Jews did.

The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina".

another in a series of posts intended to deflect from the thread topic:

Abbas Threatens to Resign

 

[justabubba]

Sayyid Abdullag the first King of TransJordan became so after he agreed with the British not to go and help his brother Faisal who was King of Syria and engaging in a war to get rid of the French.

In return for the French getting Syria and Lebanon as monarch free colonies, Abdullah was given TransJordan and Faisal Iraq. They were the sons of Ali. I referred to them earlier as sons of Faisal that was a typing error.

The fact that these people were not Palestinian did not mean Abdullah was not given 80% of the area mandated for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. TransJordan was unilaterally taken out of Palestine and created as a Jew free protectorate by Britain in direct contradiction to the Leage Mandate and when the League figured out Churchill's plan in creating TransJordan was not to try postpone a Jewish country but was a permanent move to create a Jew free state, it moved to annul the protectorate and called a meeting to do just that when WW2 broke out.

Then after the War, Britain unilaterally declared Jordan as a state and the Jews at the time were offered less than galf of the remaining 23% of Palestine for a Jewish state with the other half for a second Palestinian state and the Arab League said no, that remaining 23% could never be Jewish, not even 1%. The Zionists agreed to the small area the Belfour declaration proposed but even that was not good enough for the Arab League who then declared war on jewish settlers and said they would rid the Middle East of them.

The green line which came after the Israeli war of indpendence was the armistice line drawn by a green pen as the point where the Arab League Armies ran away and abandon the war. It is today referred to as the pre 1967 border.

Ironically it is bigger then what the Zionists indicated they were willing to accept.

However the fact remains that the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon consist of more than 80% of Palestine.

The reality is we are disputing a tiny fraction of Palestine the Arab nations were not able to get their hands on and are still upset about.

What this comes down to is a battle to not recognize anything but a Muslim state where Israel is today for Hamas, Hezbollah and all the Palestinian extremists who feel Jordan and Israel as well as the West Bank should now be part of a Muslim theocracy aligned with Syria and Iran.

This is why Egypt and Jordan do not support Hamas or Hezbollah.

Hamas is a faction of the Muslim Brotherhood which seeks to take over Egypt as well. Complicating matters is the Muslim Brotherhood has two factions, one pro Syrian which currently controls Hamas in Gaza and another anti-Syrian because it is anti-Shiite and anti Alawite (the minority controlling Syria)
and so the Hamas we see today in gaza could implode internally in a moment's notice.

Either way it is just as m uch a destabilizing force to Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt as it is Israel. and this is why in negotiations for a peace settlement Jordan will be front and centre. It can't approve a state that will be used to attack it and remove its leader who many Palestinians still hate for the Black Sabbath uprising.

another in a series of posts deflecting away from the thread topic:

Abbas Threatens to Resign

 

[Degreez]

Degreez you stated:

"I gave you the quotation right there that said why the did not use the word 'state'. You are purposely choosing to ignore this, despite it being right in front of your face."

No I am not. I was directly challenging the arguement that using the word "national home" did not mean state. I repeat again that is absurd. To say the words "national home" and the word "state" they did not use were deliberate is absurd. What do you think a national home is? What do you think the word NATIONAL means?

The arguement you repeat that the phrase "national home" was intentionally used instead of "state" because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet is a theory not a fact. Its a theory that was invented after the fact by those denying the Belfour declaration meant a state. To buy into that arguement one has to believe NATIONAL and HOME do not refer to state. Sorry but I find such an inference blatant politically partisan revisionism after the fact.

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

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

You ignoring this fact is nothing but historical revisionism.

Now you state " the 80% figure (the area of Transjordan" is a complete fabrication, as all the area west of the Jordan River was never even a part of the British Mandate of Palestine..."

You again revise history. Of course it was. Britain's maps in 1920 showed it was. Your attempt to revise history yet again is noted.

And on August 10, 1922, Britain altered the Mandate accordingly:
Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order (10 August 1922)

Power to exclude Territories to East of Jordan from application of any part of Order
86. This Order In Council Shall Not Apply To Such Parts Of The
Territory Comprised In Palestine To The East Of The Jordan And The Dead
Sea As Shall Be Defined By Order Of The High Commissioner. Subject To
To The Provisions Of Article 25 Of The Mandate, The High Commissioner May
May Make Such Provision For The Administration Of Any Territories So
Defined As Aforesaid As With The Approval Of The Secretary Of State May
be prescribed.

The Palestine Order of Council 1922 duly received Royal assent and
Given at Our Court at Saint James's this Fourteenth day of August, 1922,
in the Thirteenth Year of Our Reign.

You asked, "How was it (TransJordan)" created as a "Palestinian state"?

Simple, it was taken from 80% of the land defined as Palestine by the League of Nations Mandate. Your pretending TransJordan was never part of that mandate is convenient and selective but no Transjordan didn't just appear out of nowhere.

I never once stated Transjordan was not part of the original Mandate for Palestine. It was in 1920. It was not in 1922. As shown above, all area east of the Jordan River was included in the provisions Britain could 'postpone or withhold' those articles of the Mandate concerning a Jewish National Home.

Yous tated: "Palestinians had no part in the creation of Transjordan." Of course not it was a classic move by France and Britain to divide up the Middle East into colonies of control. No one said it was the idea of Palestinians.

So then how the hell is it a Palestinian state? Circular reasoning is flawed and is not an argument. If the Palestinians have no say in the administration of a country, then that country is not "theirs".

Syria for years was referred to as Palestine. In fact the areas known today as Israel and Jordan later were referred to as Palestine. You really do need to go back and review history and stop trying to ignore the chunks of it that do not suit your convenience.

Syria being referred to as Palestine thousands of years ago is irrelevant to your reasoning that Syria could be called a Palestinian state.

First of all you are wrong. Dead wrong. UN resolutions are not legally binding. Whether they could be enforced in an international court is doubtful and this is why it has never happened. They are voluntary. They can't be forced on nations and this is precisely why the Arab League of Nations and nations such as Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, have ignored them not just Israel.

I never said the resolutions are binding. I said not following the resolutions is a violation of Article 25 of the UN Charter. UNSC Resolutions are only binding if they are issued under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Any resolution against Israel that was under Chapter VII was always blocked by the United States, including 497.

"You are the one who is absolutely ignorant on what constitutes occupation."

Try debate the issues and refrain from the name calling. The name calling is childish. Just stick to the issues. The fact you might disagree with my opinions does not mean you should call me ignorant or vcie versa. That kind of name calling proves nothing other than you ran out of substantial arguments.

It's not name-calling. It's observation, since you obviously have no idea what constitutes an occupation.

Of course they are comparisons. You have now used them twice as comparisons and to equate them as being the same.

You are of course trying to equate Israel with Nazi Germany. The Israelis are Nazis baiting is no better than the one calling me ignorant.

Where did equate Israel with Nazi Germany? If you are purposefully going to misinterpret my posts, you're better off not posting at all. Red herring arguments will get you no where.

When Israel went into the West Bank it was as a direct result of repeated attacks by fedayeen from Jordanian controlled land on the West Bank and in particular East Jerusalem and the West Bank, particularly around Ramalah and Bethlehem as well as Hebron.

And now? The settlements are to stop repeated attacks from the West Bank? The settlement policy is nothing short of a land grab, in complete contradiction of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Again your analogy that Israel went into the West Bank because they are Nazis and had no reason to and did it because they had an agenda to wipe out all the Arabs of the Middle East speaks for itself.

Quote that analogy. Do it. Then look at the logic you went through to misinterpret my statement. Take a look at all the things I made bold. Did I post that anywhere at all? That's the difference between us. I don't have to make up a poster's argument to refute it. You apparently do.

 

[Mika-El]

another in a series of posts deflecting away from the thread topic:

No they are directly on point backing up what my earlier remarks said. I am trying to explain the basis of my opinions.

 

[Mika-El]

I will take the time to respond to you degreez.

First off in regards to the White Paper..

The 1922 White Paper indeed was an exercise in unilateral declaration by Britain to reinterpret the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate Britain was given by the League.

Yes this paper was the initial reasoning the British used to violate the mandate it was originally given by the League to justify it suddenly removing 80% of Palestinian land out of the area called Palestine and unilaterally declaring it a Jew free puppet monarchy.

Interestingly this white paper was issued on June 3, 1922, after the Arab riots of 1920-1921. You might want to ask yourself what Britain did during those riots as Jews were massacered en masse. here's a hint, they stood by and watched the massacres and deliberately did nothing.

You also might want to read for yourself from Churchill's memoirs as to how the British on the one hand tried to placate Zionists and promise them a state while talking on the other side of their mouth to Arab leaders about never allowing a Zionist state and how Britain deliberately played each side.

Interestingly the White Paper stated that Britain stood by the Balfour Declaration, and that the Declaration, "re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change". That is interesting considering Lord Balfour stated in his memoirs his declaration clearly envisioned an Israeli sovereign state.

Interestingly the same White Paper you quote also contains other words you did not mention. Let me refresh your memory. That same paper also denied that the British had promised the Arabs "that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine" after World War I.

It is also interesting to note you skipped over another comment in the White Paper which states and I quote:

"... (the Jewish community) should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection."
The above words means what? Do you know of a homeland that would be internationally guaranteed
and recognized and not be a state?

It also is a fact that in 1936 testifying before the Peel Commission Churchill testified that no prohibition against creating a Jewish state had been intended in his 1922 White Paper Memorandum so your attempt to revise history and suggest it did is false.

This is why your attempt to remove this paper out of its actual context to suggest something Churchill never intended is noted and challenged.

This is also precisely why I might add, the Arab world rejected this paper because it reaffirmed the Balfour policy of creating two states, one Palestinian and one Jewish.

The Arab world were concerned that continued Jewish immigration would lead to a Jewish majority that would eventually dominate or dispossess them.

Britan was engaged in an exercise of trying to placate its Arab allies while trying to deal with pesky Zionists.

This same White Paper further tried to placate the Arab world by unilaterally declaring that Jewish immigration to Palestine (what was left of it now that TransJordan was declared a jew free zone) could not exceed the " economic absorptive capacity of the country". Of course it never defined what that meant allowing it an open ended subjective standard.

History then shows clearly Britain incited a huge influx of Arab immigration into Jordan and remaining Palestine while imposing a double standard on Jewish immigration in a deliberate effort to try swamp the region with Arabs to make a Jewish nation impossible to achieve.

Britain in fact displaced the original Palestinians with Arab immigrants in an effort to prevent a Jewish state. However I am not the one to re-write history to pretend the sudden population increase of alleged Palestinian Arabs from 1880 to 1940 went up over 800% because of natural birth-rate and not an influx of non Palestinian Arabs who in facted displaced the real indigenous Palestinians.

I am not the one who argues the law of return for Jews is in Israel is racist while remaining silent on the current Palestinian definition that says anyone who is a Muslim or Arab who moves to the West Bank or Gaza today and stays for more than 2 years or is decended from non Palestinian Arabs or Muslims who came to Palestine is a Palestinian but Jews who came to Palestine or had and have been living on the West Bank since Biblical days, i.e., in Hebron are not Palestinian and in a future Palestinian state they will be expelled as no Jews will be allowed to live in Palestine.

In the revision of history only Jews who come to Palestine are foreigners. Non Palestinian Arabs and Muslims who came to Palestine are suddenly Palestinian. This revision plays on and depends on people not taking the time to find out the actual number of Muslim Palestinians in Palestine and how the vast majority of people today claiming to be Palestinian are not and never were.

 

[Mika-El]

Now the next interesting argument you raise Degreez is to suggest that the way to determine the agenda of Zionists is to only read a passage as to what the British said were their motives.

Are you suggesting this is the way to ascertain what the Zionist agenda in Israel was? Lol are you suggesting we just take the British government's word for it Zionists never wanted an Israeli state?

Really?

Come on now. Rather than read a British partisan statement how about you go directly to the source and find out what there agenda was. It was abundantly clear. The Zionist movement wanted a state not a Cherokee nation as someone else laughingly raised to suggest the British were suggesting Jews have a nation like the Cherokees did in the U.S.

Here's a hint, no the Zionists did not see themselves as Cherokees in the U.S. The Cherokee people like many other aboriginal peoples have had and had a different relationship to their land. For them they were part of the land-they were one of many living organisms on it who had a vested interest in sharing it. They did not recognize any sovereign state just the natural imperative of peoples to share it.

In the Zionist definition of Israel it was not contrary to myth, spiritual. In fact most Zionists were atheist or agnostic. They saw the return to Israel as a political and existential exercise of survival and to achieve survival of the collective jewish identity return to the nation they came from and create a state to assure they would never again be objects of the state's hatred or discrimination or state initiated or condoned pogroms, conversions, etc.

The religious Zionists of today were always a fringe minority.

Zionists for the most part were survivalists tired of living as second class citizens and the target of scorn in the Christian and Muslim worlds.

 

[CJ 2.0]

another in a series of posts intended to deflect from the thread topic:

how is it an attempt at distraction exactly? Seems to me more like he is exploring the arguments trotted out as distractions by the anti-Israel side.

With respect to the topic at hand, Abbas is following his script, pursuing his rejectionist objectives and playing a spoiled little brat having a temper tantrum, always wanting more, never willing to give anything himself or take responsibility for his actions.

On topic enough?

 

[Mika-El]

The actual history of the Zionist Commission is such that to suggest it never wanted a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine is ludicrous.

In fact it as the Zionist Organisation (ZO) in the year 1908 which created the Eretz Yisrael Office in Jaffato create an Israeli state. Eretz Israel does not mean Cherokee nation. It means State of Israel.

After the Balfour Declaration was distributed in 1917, Chaim Weizmann, who was President of the British Zionist Federation whose charter was to create an Israeli state not a Cherokee nation, formed the Zionist Commission in March 1918 which Degreez now would suggest never wanted an Israeli state.

This commission went to Palestine inApril 1918 to study conditions and to report to the British government. It was a lobby group designed to promote a Jewish state as is clear in all its literature and memorandums. Weizmann was not thinking of a Cherokee nation when he reorganized the Zionist Organization's Palestine office to create departments for agriculture, settlement, education, land, finance, immigration, and statistics. All these departments were specifically created as a precursor to government ministries in a state.

This is also why on April 14, 1920, the jews of Palestine held elections for selecting representatives for the Assembly of Representatives of the Palestinian Jewish community. They were preparing a state government.

In 1921, the Zionist Commission became the Palestine Zionist Executive and was designated as the Jewish Agency for Palestine for the purpose of setting up a Jewish state not a Cherokee nation.

The Palestine Zionist Executive oversaw Jewish immigration to Palestine, land purchases and planning of the government to be. It also ran schools and hospitals, and formed a defence force, the Haganah.
Sound familiar?

Then in 1929, the Jewish Agency for Palestine was officially created by the 16th Zionist Congress which was held in Zurich, Switzerlan.

During that congress people asked to join who did not want a Jewish state and 112 seats at that congress were allotted for non-Zionists.

Wiezmann was replaced in 1931 as head of the congress and Zionist Organization by Nahum Sokolow because it felt he wasn't working fast enough to achieve a Jewish state. Arthur Ruppin became President of the Jewish Agency in 1933 and he was openly pro Jewish state and David Ben Gurion and Moshe Shertok joined the executive until in 1935, Ben Gurion was elected President of the Agency to succeed Ruppin and his pro state agenda was blatant.

In fact in 1937 The Peel Commission recommended a Jewish state. The Zionist Congress then declined to endorse the Commission's conclusions, arguing it only endorsed a Jewish state in Palestine but not TransJordan ahd the Zionist congress argued that the Balfour Declaration referred to all of Palestine INCLUDING Transjordan not the remaining Palestine after TransJordan was taken out..

There was a split at this point with some Zionists arguing they should simply settle for a state in the remaining area with others saying, no the Balfour declaration talked of Palestine including the are now called TransJordan and Britain's unlateral decision to take 80% of Palestine and decide it was no longer Palestine was b.s.

At the time WW 2 broke out and as fate would have it the League had called a meeting to rescind TransJordan as an illegally created territory but the meeting never took place since the war pre-empted the meeting.

After the end of WW2 the League of Nations mandate then expired. The Zionist Organization and Congress reluctantly agreed to the accepting less than half of the remaining Palestinian geographic area for a jewish nation but the Arab League said they would not allow even 1% of land to be a Jewish nation in the Middle East.

The Arab League said it would never accept any Jewish state. So the Jewish settlers declared themselves a state, the Arab League then commenced a war to drive them out, lost that war and ever since has been complaining about a war it started and lost and refuses to acknowledge its complicity in exploiting Palestinians as political pawns. It was the Arab League who deliberately placed Palestinians in refugee camps and declared to the world they would be held their indefinitely until Israel was disbanded.

It was the Arab League who then ordered the expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab League nations seizing all their property and forcing them to leave with nothing. 700,000 of those Jews which is about 100,000 more then actual displaced Arabs from Israel during the War of Independence, were then forced to flee to Israel for refuge.

That forced expulsion meant even if Israel wanted to give land back to Arabs returning to Israel who had fled before the War of Independence, they could no longer do so since they needed the land to accommodate these 700,000.

There are in fact 3 displaced peoples. The original Palestinians displaced by Arabs who moved to Palestine in the 1920's to 1940's; the Arabs in the area today known as pre-1967 Israel who could be both Palestinians or Arabs who moved to Palestine during the 1920's to 1940's and the Jews of the Arab world.

In revisionist history there is no mention of the expelled Jews and non Palestinian Arabs who moved to the area today known as pre-167 Israel or the West Bank are all indistinguishably defined as Palestinian refugees even the descendants of the actual displaced persons who with any other people of the world would not be considered refugees.

 

[Gardener]

It was the Arab League who then ordered the expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab League nations seizing all their property and forcing them to leave with nothing. 700,000 of those Jews which is about 100,000 more then actual displaced Arabs from Israel during the War of Independence, were then forced to flee to Israel for refuge.

That forced expulsion meant even if Israel wanted to give land back to Arabs returning to Israel who had fled before the War of Independence, they could no longer do so since they needed the land to accommodate these 700,000.

.

This is the key to understanding the whole issue as far as I'm concerned, as those who only represent a one-sided population transfer are simply too dishonest in their agenda to acknowledge the facts of the situation.