How Would You Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
senojekips
Active member
Would you care to show me some sources to back your claims. So far I have shown all of your rubbish to be false and provided sources to back up my claims. So far you have only quoted "what you think",.... like your last stupid comment regarding no agreement between the Brits and the Palestinians in 1915... (Hussein-McMahon Agreement)
Last edited:
Had you read i mentioned in earlier communications that the League of Nations agreement to turn over to the British some of the carcass of the Ottoman empire based upon British treaty commitments to both Arabs and Jews. The agreement which you brought is the 1st of two agreements the British government made during the war years. The 2nd was the Balfour agreement. This is known history to anyone familiar in the least with Middle Eastern history. That your so proud that you know what 3rd graders in Israel know ... well if it makes you feel intellectual i too shall pat you on your head and tell you that your a good boy.
senojekips
Active member
So, now you agree with me, that there was a promise made to the Palestinians. Only several posts ago you were saying that there were no Palestinian people at all, and also that there was no promise of a homeland for them in Palestine in 1915. I showed that you were wrong on both counts,... and now you are agreeing with me??? If you are going to debate this matter FFS make up your mind what you are trying to say, don't keep changing your story.
Here I made the point, that the land was promised by the British to the Palestinians before the Balfour agreement was ever raised. Therefore the Balfour agreement was in fact a doublecross by the British, who actually had no right to make either agreement as the land was not theirs in the first place they were only the administrators and they recognised the Palestinian people as the rightful owners.
I ask again, is English your first language? I seriously doubt that you have any real understanding of what is being said.
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Here I made the point, that the land was promised by the British to the Palestinians before the Balfour agreement was ever raised. Therefore the Balfour agreement was in fact a doublecross by the British, who actually had no right to make either agreement as the land was not theirs in the first place they were only the administrators and they recognised the Palestinian people as the rightful owners.
An Arabian prince is not a mythical Palestinian. You can pretend that the 1915 Agreement involved your so called mythical people all you want but it does not change the facts of history. Britain signed 2 treaty obligations. Count it ONE, TWO. Britain did not make any other treaty agreements which involved the current disputed territories. NONE.
An Arabian prince is not a mythical Palestinian. You can pretend that the 1915 Agreement involved your so called mythical people all you want but it does not change the facts of history. Britain signed 2 treaty obligations. Count it ONE, TWO. Britain did not make any other treaty agreements which involved the current disputed territories. NONE.
senojekips
Active member
I don't care how stupid you are, the agreement was made by the British on behalf of the Palestinian people and it doesn't matter if the guy was an Eskimo. The promise was still made and it was then double crossed at the insistence of Lord Balfour two years later.
Never the less, the fact remains that the land never belonged to the Brits, or the UN, they and they had no right to make any agreements on behalf of anyone anyway. The land belonged to the Palestinian people this was agreed by Britain and was why they made the agreement in 1915. The land was not unoccupied so under Terra Nullius, the Palestinians were the owners and occupants.
Simple enough even for you to grasp.
Jordan is not a Palestinian nation even though the majority of the population is "palestinian". That you continually add 1 + 1 = 3 I am sorry your mother dropped you on your head at birth. The 1915 treaty resulted in the establishment of the Jordanian state cut out of the original Palestinian League of Nations Mandate. That you pretend that the 1915 treaty concerned the mythical palestinians ... yes this error of yours I acknowledge. Move on. Cause 1 + 1 does not equal 3.
The land belonged to the Palestinian people
By what right? The land belonged to the Ottoman Turks who are not Sunni Arabs. The Arabs who style themselves as "Palestinians" are Sunni Arabs. You can jabber all you like but it does not change the facts. The Ottoman Turks lost the war to the British and the land belonged to the British who conquered it from the non Arab Ottoman Turks.
By what right? The land belonged to the Ottoman Turks who are not Sunni Arabs. The Arabs who style themselves as "Palestinians" are Sunni Arabs. You can jabber all you like but it does not change the facts. The Ottoman Turks lost the war to the British and the land belonged to the British who conquered it from the non Arab Ottoman Turks.
Palestinians were the owners and occupants.
Again by what right? Certainly not by Turkish Law. You ignored that pesky point concerning Turkish law which still applies in Israel today! The State owns the land and a private person leases the land from the State on a 99 year lease. That's the fact. And your pie in the sky dreams don't change the facts.
Again by what right? Certainly not by Turkish Law. You ignored that pesky point concerning Turkish law which still applies in Israel today! The State owns the land and a private person leases the land from the State on a 99 year lease. That's the fact. And your pie in the sky dreams don't change the facts.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Both Britain and France wrote cheques which bounced after WW1 was over.
The McMahon-Hussein Agreement of October 1915 was accepted by Palestinians as a promise by the British that after World War One, land previously held by the Turks would be returned to the Arab nationals who lived in that land. The McMahon-Hussein Agreement was to greatly complicate Middle East history and seemed to directly clash with the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
In an effort to create a third front against the Central Powers (Germany, Austria and Turkey) the Allies encouraged the Arab people in the Ottoman Empire to rise up against their Turkish overlords thus splitting the Central Powers war effort three ways.
Sir Henry McMahon, acting on behalf of the British government, met with Sherif Hussein of Mecca in 1915 and made what were taken to be a series of promises to the Arab people. These ‘promises’ were later disputed by the British government and, as with many issues concerning recent Middle East history, were open to interpretation.
Hussein interpreted the correspondence given to him by McMahon as a clear indication that Palestine would be given to the Palestinians once the war had ended. The British government was later to dispute this interpretation. They claimed that any land definitions were only approximate and that a map drawn at the time (but not by McMahon or a member of the British delegation) excluded Palestine from land to be given back to the Arab people.
T. E. Lawrence accompanied the Arab delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference where they fully expected their reward for helping the Allies in the war - full independence. Britain and France carved up the*Middle East*into their own zones of influence and the French even ejected Feisal from Damascus.
In effect Spike is correct
The McMahon-Hussein Agreement of October 1915 was accepted by Palestinians as a promise by the British that after World War One, land previously held by the Turks would be returned to the Arab nationals who lived in that land. The McMahon-Hussein Agreement was to greatly complicate Middle East history and seemed to directly clash with the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
In an effort to create a third front against the Central Powers (Germany, Austria and Turkey) the Allies encouraged the Arab people in the Ottoman Empire to rise up against their Turkish overlords thus splitting the Central Powers war effort three ways.
Sir Henry McMahon, acting on behalf of the British government, met with Sherif Hussein of Mecca in 1915 and made what were taken to be a series of promises to the Arab people. These ‘promises’ were later disputed by the British government and, as with many issues concerning recent Middle East history, were open to interpretation.
Hussein interpreted the correspondence given to him by McMahon as a clear indication that Palestine would be given to the Palestinians once the war had ended. The British government was later to dispute this interpretation. They claimed that any land definitions were only approximate and that a map drawn at the time (but not by McMahon or a member of the British delegation) excluded Palestine from land to be given back to the Arab people.
T. E. Lawrence accompanied the Arab delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference where they fully expected their reward for helping the Allies in the war - full independence. Britain and France carved up the*Middle East*into their own zones of influence and the French even ejected Feisal from Damascus.
In effect Spike is correct
senojekips
Active member
Of course not Turkish law, we are talking about International law as it stood in 1947. The Turks were only occupiers the same as Israel.
International law works good for boat in international waters. Israel is not a mandate territory of the UN. Israel is an independent state. This pie in the sky hogwash of foreigners making laws for nations peoples who did not elect these people to make these laws ... its simply idiotic. Let the British permit the UN to determine its relations with Ireland. The notion well its beyond absurd.
senojekips
Active member
Your personal views are of no consequence when it comes to International law. No doubt those who were hung after the Nuremburg Trials objected to it too.
It's funny y'know, I but don't seem to remember too many Zionists whining about that decision.
Last edited:
The labours of Heracles are peanuts compared to this task. How can you make peace with a neighbour who wants your destruction? (Fatah's constitution art 12 : Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence and Hamas Charter art 6 : Hamas is uniquely Palestinian, and "strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine."). Israel does not have anti Palestinian laws and made peace deals with Jordan, Egypt and the PLO. The Camp David and Oslo accords started in secret so another accord must be done in secret too because there are to many anti-Israeli and some anti-Palestinian movements to sabotage such meetings. The only bargaining chip the Israelis have are the settlements. These can be traded in against constitution changes, security and democratization. The 1967 borders are the most feasible with UN forces in Palestine as the sole military force outside the police force for a limited time untill Palestinian forces are proffessionally trained. The training could be done by EU forces. Another important matter is education. Anti-Israel sentiments and antisemitic content in Palestinian textbooks must be removed and the maps used must include Israel. Some textbooks for the Orthodox Jewish community must be changed too. The UNRWA should be given more finances in order to enhance their positive work. Palestinian schools must be able to buy the things they need. The Palestinian police force in the West Bank is capable and should be expanded to Gaza. Moderate Muslims and Jews can live in peace (Ottoman Empire , Cordoba), the problem are the fanatics, and Gaza and the Muslim world is full of them. The ones who say that terrorism stops when Israel is gone are wrong. The fanatics want to conquer the wordld. Israel is just a reason to continue fighting. Look at the conflicts of today.
RayManKiller3
Active member
Even if they are right, it makes no good arguement except to those willing to make peace because they fear the consquences. Terrorism should be treated with nothing but contempt and should be resisted. If these groups want to change something, then they must do it like the many other countries have; through peaceful protests. Sure it takes a longer period of time, but it works.
senojekips
Active member
Only because Israel has deliberately made it hard, and continues to do so to this day by continually colonising land that is not theirs.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Well here is a quick starter for ya, first off it would probably be best to drop the "antisemitic" argument because the Palestinians themselves are a semitic people and I am pretty sure they are not anti-themselves.
Personally this is one word that need to be redefined or at least it appears those using it need to be re-educated in its meaning.
Only because Israel has deliberately made it hard, and continues to do so to this day by continually colonising land that is not theirs.
Bunk an empty claim made from a person who does not live in the Middle East, has no family in the Middle East, nor owns property in the Middle East. Empty Drums make the loudest NOISE.
Bunk an empty claim made from a person who does not live in the Middle East, has no family in the Middle East, nor owns property in the Middle East. Empty Drums make the loudest NOISE.