So why do people hate Israel?

[MontyB]

I can't wait until Palestine gets full recognition and they start having all the israeli War Criminals placed on the International Watch List to be arrested on sight. I wonder who the Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal will be.

Whoever he is, he'll want to be a young man because he'll have a job for life.

In all honesty if Palestinians were to achieve full recognition I doubt they would bother chasing the ICC as they would have achieved their goals, personally I think what will drive them to the ICC is the lack of recognition and continued settlement expansion.

Essentially there is nothing stopping them pursuing legal matters now but I do get the impression that they believe the best course of action is the negotiated settlement based on the 1967 borders (which is pretty much what the world is expecting as well) which will become more difficult if they let things become mired in legal wrangling however if settlements continue to go up then I doubt they will have any other recourse but the ICC.

My suggestion is that if you get the chance go talk to them, they are a funny bunch fairly stoic (a trait that fits the ANZAC mind set) as you might expect and for the most part very welcoming and friendly.

 

[senojekips]

In all honesty if Palestinians were to achieve full recognition I doubt they would bother chasing the ICC \

If that is the case, I think you'll find that the matter will be taken out of the hands of the Palestinians, by a number of organizations like the UN and Amnesty International who will demand it of the ICJ.

Too many people have axes to grind, I mean to say, there is a backlog of 60+ years of War Crimes and Crimes against humanity, that without the US being able to veto, as they have in the past, will just all bubble up to the surface.

 

[VDKMS]

No one cares what you think VD,... Palestine was flooded with illegal European Immigrants after WWII, who then drove the native population out of their own land into neighbouring countries at gunpoint killing many of those who resisted, and refused to allow them to return.

They then stole all of their land and possessions.

It's all been said before and the evidence has been available for over 60 years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I wrote was not what I think but what people of that time saw and wrote about (FACTS not opinions), which has much more value than what modernday anti-Israel people write. Of course, we all know that you don't like to hear the truth.

No one cares what you think VD,... Palestine was flooded with illegal European Immigrants after WWII, who then drove the native population out of their own land into neighbouring countries at gunpoint killing many of those who resisted, and refused to allow them to return.

They then stole all of their land and possessions.

It's all been said before and the evidence has been available for over 60 years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An article full of errors.

- Settlements take up less than 5% of the west bank. (not the 70% the article want's you to believe)

- All settlements are on public land and NOT private Palestinian land as so many accuse Israel of doing.

- About those 400 people and more than 200 homes (must be rich families) : So out of 2.5 million people 400 who built houses without proper permits were forced to leave. That is .016% of the population. Hardly driving them out.

- The article doesn't mention that Israeli settlers were evacuated from West Bank outpost following court order.

- Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s new defence minister, the ultimate authority in the West Bank according to the article, has no authority at all in the West Bank area A and limited authority in Area B (only security together with the palestinians). In area C the Israeli government is in control.

- In every country you need a building permit to build a house. If you build one without it there is the possibility that it gets demolished. Palestinians ore not treated different, they need a building permit or else it could be demolished. Like :

Hamas to demolish 75 houses built on public lands

“Members of the Abu Amrah family in Gaza City demonstrated Tuesday in front of offices of the Palestinian Legislative Council protesting a decision by the Hamas-run government to demolish 75 houses belonging to the family in the al-Rimal neighborhood.

The government says it decided to demolish the houses because they were illegally built on public lands. The demolition is scheduled to be conducted Wednesday morning.”​

Hamas demolishes Palestinian Arabs' illegal houses

"Hamas police expelled Palestinian Arabs from perhaps three dozen houses along the border of Sinai, and demolished them. Hamas said those houses were illegal, being erected on government property in Rafiah.
Masked Hamas policewomen beat fellow Arab women and children with clubs, until they evacuated the houses."​

It would certainly appear that Google agrees with you, I would also suggest that it is becoming apparent that fewer and fewer groups are taking much notice of Israel's protestations either these days.

I really think Aesop's fables should be mandatory reading in Israel, I would start with "The boy who cried wolf" it may explain where things are heading.

Google recognises 'Palestine' on homepage

11:00 Sat May 4 2013
AAP

Google has recognised the Palestinians' upgraded UN status, placing the name "Palestine" on its search engine instead of "Palestinian Territories".
The domain name www.google.ps, Google's search engine for the territories, now brings up a homepage with "Palestine" written underneath the Google logo.
The change took effect on Wednesday, Google spokesman Nathan Tyler said in a statement on Friday.
"We're changing the name 'Palestinian Territories' to 'Palestine' across our products. We consult a number of sources and authorities when naming countries. In this case, we are following the lead of the UN ... and other international organisations," he said.
The UN General Assembly in November upgraded Palestine to the status of non-member observer state by a vote of 138 votes in favour, nine against and 41 abstentions.
Palestinian authorities have since begun to use the "State of Palestine" in diplomatic correspondence and issued official stamps for the purpose.
Israel questioned Google's decision.
"This change raises questions about the reasons behind this surprising involvement of what is basically a private internet company in international politics - and on the controversial side," foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AFP.

http://news.msn.co.nz/worldnews/8652955/google-recognises-palestine-on-homepage

Amazing how something that doesn't exist now has a place on the map.

Do you also only read the first words that are written by writers who favor Israel?
I'll just give you the sentence of my post #1311 of this tread :
"The first Palestinian state was established in 1994 thanks to an accord with Israel."

I can't wait until Palestine gets full recognition and they start having all the israeli War Criminals placed on the International Watch List to be arrested on sight. I wonder who the Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal will be.

Whoever he is, he'll want to be a young man because he'll have a job for life.

Me too, each and every rocket fired at civilian towns with no military value whatsoever is a war crime. How many did the Palestinians already fired?
BTW, retaliation after a rocket attack is legitimate.

 

[MontyB]

Me too, each and every rocket fired at civilian towns with no military value whatsoever is a war crime. How many did the Palestinians already fired?
BTW, retaliation after a rocket attack is legitimate.

I am not sure that is a valid argument as given that all Israeli citizens of military age are theoretically at least just off duty soldiers they must be legitimate targets.

In terms of retaliation using your logic it would make Saddam Husseins scud missile attacks legitimite once the coalition began its campaign, however one of the major problems in differentiating legal from illegal or criminal acts of war concerns apparently civilian objectives that may have a use by the military. Most buildings used by civilians in peacetime are protected under international law. Article 52 of Additional Protocol I states, “In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house, or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”

Still no matter what decision is made attacking forces are still required to meet the test of whether predictable harm would be proportional to the military advantage and given the ineffectiveness of Hamas attacks on Israel I would argue that killing 20 civilians for 1 Hamas would not meet that test.

I have tried to stay away from using German/WW2 analogies in this pointless battle but in this case I think it applies, my belief is that Israel is not about destroying Hamas it is about retaliation it thinks that if it kills X Palestinians for every Israeli it will create enough fear in the local population it will buckle under but unlike the Germans it cant just march out 50-100 people and shoot them so it hides behind its "retaliation" and "right to self defense" statements, the problem is that while Israeli leadership rattles off these "excuses" and thinks people believe them it has failed to grasp that the western world has become so used to double speak from its own politicians that all but the most fanatical see it for what it is.

 

[senojekips]

- Settlements take up less than 5% of the west bank. (not the 70% the article want's you to believe)

- All settlements are on public land and NOT private Palestinian land as so many accuse Israel of doing.

I'm not talking about your illegal "settlements built on Palestinian land. I'm talking of Israel the whole place is no more than illegally occupied Palestine, and under International law no occupied land can be annexed as you are so well aware,....

No Jewish homeland was ever put in place, and even if it had it would have contravened the Mandate in the it was not in the best interests of the Palestinian people (the reason it never happened) The country was flooded with illegal European immigrants against the wishes of it's population.

Do you also only read the first words that are written by writers who favor Israel?
I'll just give you the sentence of my post #1311 of this tread :
"The first Palestinian state was established in 1994 thanks to an accord with Israel."

I know it's obvious that you think I am an absolute idiot, but I'm not that stupid yet. I would no more take your rubbish seriously than, read and inwardly digest the wild ramblings, lies and distortions of Joseph Goebbels. I would rather stick with the facts undistorted by your fanatical deliberate misinterpretations and outright misrepresentation. e.g Settlements built on "public" land,... All land belongs to the native people, what you are talking of is only "public" land in the eyes of the occupiers. (enacted in clear contravention of International Law).

Major Legal Principle Violated -

Military Action and Occupation are Only Legal when They are Purely Defensive.
2. Occupation Must Never Lead To Sovereignty over Occupied or Conquered Lands of the Enemy People or Nation.
4. The Occupant is Required to not Significantly Change Local Laws Unless Required For Its Own Security Or To Benefit The Local Population.

Israel's laws do neither, illegal settlements are no more than a land grab.

Me too, each and every rocket fired at civilian towns with no military value whatsoever is a war crime. How many did the Palestinians already fired?
BTW, retaliation after a rocket attack is legitimate.

Resistance against an invader and occupier is not illegal. As has been pointed out a dozen times before.

 

[VDKMS]

I'm not talking about your illegal "settlements built on Palestinian land. I'm talking of Israel the whole place is no more than illegally occupied Palestine, and under International law no occupied land can be annexed as you are so well aware,....

The land which is now Israel used to be Ottoman's, but that empire lost that territory (and it's existence) and was given by the International community to Israel. Israel didn't annex the land. Jordan did until they were fed-up with the Palestinians en renounced it in 1988. Did the Palestinians declared independence in 1988? NO!

No Jewish homeland was ever put in place, and even if it had it would have contravened the Mandate in the it was not in the best interests of the Palestinian people (the reason it never happened) The country was flooded with illegal European immigrants against the wishes of it's population.

I advise you to read beyond the few lines you do now, then you would know how wrong you are.
The best interest for the Palestinian people was to live under Israeli rule. The average Arab in Israel has a far better life than the averge Arab in Palestine.

Arab unenployment Israel : 12% - Palestine : 21%
Average daily wage (NIS), 2011 Israel : 162.20 - Palestine 78.6 -94.3

Again you are disregarding the massive illegal Arab immigration. The Jewish immigration was not against the wishes of the local population but against the wishes of the fanatical clerics who incited the riots. Or did you forget that the first riots in Jerusalem targeted native born Jews and Jews praying at the wall and not the settlers!

I know it's obvious that you think I am an absolute idiot, but I'm not that stupid yet. I would no more take your rubbish seriously than, read and inwardly digest the wild ramblings, lies and distortions of Joseph Goebbels. I would rather stick with the facts undistorted by your fanatical deliberate misinterpretations and outright misrepresentation. e.g Settlements built on "public" land,... All land belongs to the native people, what you are talking of is only "public" land in the eyes of the occupiers. (enacted in clear contravention of International Law).

Major Legal Principle Violated -

Military Action and Occupation are Only Legal when They are Purely Defensive.
2. Occupation Must Never Lead To Sovereignty over Occupied or Conquered Lands of the Enemy People or Nation.
4. The Occupant is Required to not Significantly Change Local Laws Unless Required For Its Own Security Or To Benefit The Local Population.

Israel's laws do neither, illegal settlements are no more than a land grab.

Israeli occupation is legal because Israel defended itself against the Arabs multiple times.

When Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip in 1967, it maintained the previous laws with some changes made in the form of military orders.

Resistance against an invader and occupier is not illegal. As has been pointed out a dozen times before.

And a dozen times that quote does not apply to the Palestinians.
It's time that you learn to understand that Palestinians are not Aboriginals. They are not a tribe people. They lived in countries, with a government and a capital. Ottoman (region not called Palestine) , Britis Mandate , Jordan , Israel and since 1994 PA. Which one did Israel invade?

 

[senojekips]

The land which is now Israel used to be Ottoman's, but that empire lost that territory (and it's existence) and was given by the International community to Israel. Israel didn't annex the land. Jordan did until they were fed-up with the Palestinians en renounced it in 1988. Did the Palestinians declared independence in 1988? NO!

The international community said nothing of the sort. There was only ever a an un ratified recommendation. All answered several times in previous posts.

I advise you to read beyond the few lines you do now, then you would know how wrong you are.

Your "advise" is no more than Hasbara at best, and Zionazi propaganda at it's worst, totally meaningless outside the pro Zionist community.
The Palestinians aren't interested in what you or their thieving, murdering occupiers think "is in their best interests". If I were to steal all your belongings and murder anyone that objected or resisted, then treat you like an animal,..... any court in the non Zionist world would have me committed as a raving lunatic if I attempted to use the defence, "I thought it was in your best interests". This is a typical piece of your Hasbara Bullsh!t, and is exactly the type of reason why anything you say can be written off as totally worthless.

I think I could say without any fear of contradiction, that the fact you actually believe such a stupid statement is clear evidence that you are either a pathological liar or in urgent need of psychiatric help.

Again you are disregarding the massive illegal Arab immigration. The Jewish immigration was not against the wishes of the local population but against the wishes of the fanatical clerics who incited the riots. Or did you forget that the first riots in Jerusalem targeted native born Jews and Jews praying at the wall and not the settlers!

Having had a number of relatives who left Palestine due to Zionist trouble makers in the 1890s, I know that you are again merely quoting Hasbara trash.

Israeli occupation is legal because Israel defended itself against the Arabs multiple times.

As previously shown the Zionists were there illegally and the fact that they stole the land and the Arabs resisted gives them no rights. International law rulings all posted several times previously.

And a dozen times that quote does not apply to the Palestinians.

Only in the eyes of the Israelis.
The Palestinians are recognised as the native people by everyone except the pro Zionists. All of the unrelated rubbish you state about tribal people having no bearing on the matter whatsoever. More Hasbara "fluff".

 

[MontyB]

Arab unenployment Israel : 12% - Palestine : 21%
Average daily wage (NIS), 2011 Israel : 162.20 - Palestine 78.6 -94.3

Really?

Given the conditions Palestinians live under (lack of facilities, difficulties in moving around and just general spitefulness of the occupation forces and "settlers") I would suggest that they are doing better than expected if those figures are right especially when you look at places like Nevada in the US sitting around 10% and no one blows up everything they build.

Hell they aren't in the top 30 worst off for unemployment (seems they are 37th) not bad for an occupied nation.

 

[VDKMS]

The international community said nothing of the sort. There was only ever a an un ratified recommendation. All answered several times in previous posts.

Yes, and your answers were each and every time wrong.

The Council of the League of Nations : The Palestine Mandate : Article 1
"The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

Article 2 : ...will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home..."

Article 6 : ...shall facilitate Jewish immigration..."

Article 22 : ...English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew...

Your "advise" is no more than Hasbara at best, and Zionazi propaganda at it's worst, totally meaningless outside the pro Zionist community.
The Palestinians aren't interested in what you or their thieving, murdering occupiers think "is in their best interests". If I were to steal all your belongings and murder anyone that objected or resisted, then treat you like an animal,..... any court in the non Zionist world would have me committed as a raving lunatic if I attempted to use the defence, "I thought it was in your best interests". This is a typical piece of your Hasbara Bullsh!t, and is exactly the type of reason why anything you say can be written off as totally worthless.

I think I could say without any fear of contradiction, that the fact you actually believe such a stupid statement is clear evidence that you are either a pathological liar or in urgent need of psychiatric help.

Amen. Not one fact to disprove what I've said. Just your usual litany.

Having had a number of relatives who left Palestine due to Zionist trouble makers in the 1890s, I know that you are again merely quoting Hasbara trash.

That's what you are saying, but is that the truth? Maybe he left because of roving Bedouins, or hardship, or because jews were heavely taxed and treated as second class citizens.
You must give me verifiable facts before I want to believe that.

As previously shown the Zionists were there illegally and the fact that they stole the land and the Arabs resisted gives them no rights. International law rulings all posted several times previously.

Again rubbish. Even the illegal immigrants (Arabs, Jews,..) were legalised by the British Mandate. Buying land is not the same as stealing. Or are you telling me that your ancester stole the land of a fellah family?

Only in the eyes of the Israelis.
The Palestinians are recognised as the native people by everyone except the pro Zionists. All of the unrelated rubbish you state about tribal people having no bearing on the matter whatsoever. More Hasbara "fluff".

And among those native people were Jews, Christians and Moslims. Among the immigrants were Jews, Christians and Moslims. I never heard you say one word about the illegal immigration of Arabs. Or rich Arabs who lived outside Palestine and bought the land of the Fellah's and exploiting them. Or roving Bedouins who attacked the Fellah's and stole or destroyed the remainder of their crops.
You have a very biased view.

 

[senojekips]

Yes, and your answers were each and every time wrong.

The Council of the League of Nations : The Palestine Mandate : Article 1
"The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

Article 2 : ...will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home..."

Article 6 : ...shall facilitate Jewish immigration..."

Article 22 : ...English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew...

Good try VD but no better than your usual repeated lies, in that it has already been pointed out numerous times that none of this could occur because it would have contravened the primary ruling that no harm must come to the Palestinian people.

Amen. Not one fact to disprove what I've said. Just your usual litany.

As usual your own stupid reasoning was all the proof anyone needs, you make it so easy.

That's what you are saying, but is that the truth? Maybe he left because of roving Bedouins, or hardship, or because jews were heavely taxed and treated as second class citizens.
You must give me verifiable facts before I want to believe that.

It is a matter of family history and no one cares whether you believe it. The very fact hat he and his family lived peaceably among his Arab neighbours is a pretty good indication that the land was not stolen. It was problems arising from the subsequent land grabs by militant Zionists that caused most of the family to come to Australia. I still have family in Israel and funnily enough I was invited to the wedding of one of my relatives with whom I am in regular contact, Sarah Moss to Yahoyda Be'eri at Kibbutz Ramat Rachel (Near Jerusalem) in 1999, my contacts are a lot closer than you think.

Again rubbish. Even the illegal immigrants (Arabs, Jews,..) were legalised by the British Mandate. Buying land is not the same as stealing. Or are you telling me that your ancester stole the land of a fellah family?

And where is your verifiable truth? Only legal migrants were recognised. It is a recorded fact that the Brits were doing all in their power to limit legal immigration and stop the Illegal immigrants, not legalise them, hence the violent terror campaign by the Zionist terror groups. Your lies catch up with you at every turn.

And among those native people were Jews, Christians and Moslims. Among the immigrants were Jews, Christians and Moslims. I never heard you say one word about the illegal immigration of Arabs. Or rich Arabs who lived outside Palestine and bought the land of the Fellah's and exploiting them. Or roving Bedouins who attacked the Fellah's and stole or destroyed the remainder of their crops.
You have a very biased view.

The subject of the thread is not about Arab migration it's about why Israel is hated. Other than which I have never read of any Palestinian resistance to the Arabs.

Yes my view is biased,... towards the truth.

 

[MontyB]

Yes, and your answers were each and every time wrong.

The Council of the League of Nations : The Palestine Mandate : Article 1
"The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

Article 2 : ...will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home..."

Article 6 : ...shall facilitate Jewish immigration..."

Article 22 : ...English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew...

Ummm I think you are still mixing and matching your "facts".

Of course the British had the full power of legislation and administration as they were there to bring about the conditions to allow the locals to take over as indicated in article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, you can't build a nation without legislative powers but that never gave it the right to give it to someone else (if I hire you to manage my company you can make the rules but you cant sell it).

I also do not see any particular reason why you are focusing on signage being in English, Arabic and Hebrew as the English were administering the place and the bulk of the population were Arabic and Hebrew speaking.

But as Spike points out in the original mandate it is clear that the region is only being administered until such time as it can be turned over to its population (it does not mention an imported population) and the second "mandate" clearly states..."it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

Now you can argue any dreamed up ideas of what the mandate meant until hell freezes over but the second Britain or the UN/League of Nations broke that or any other bit of the mandate then things become sticky.

My personal belief after reading both documents is that no "purely" Jewish "State" was ever envisioned, what was envisioned was a Palestine set up to provide a state where both Arab and Jew coexisted as a single entity ie a homeland which is why Article 2 states...

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

 

[Del Boy]

Ah yes. The Kangaroo Court is alive & in full cry, attempting always to dehumanise any who dare puncture their self-importance and bloated egos.

They wish to brush under the carpet the fact that by their own measure they should be ready to quit their European colonisations, just as those in South Africa have done . The Jews have far, far greater claim to their homeland than those who squat comfortably in the land they occupy, attained by terrible racist force.

Mind you - I note that all bases have been covered by at the same time staking claim to the European homeland and Jewish identity!

A choice demonstration of people who live in glass houses.

Of course, on go their blind-folds regarding the activities of those they champion - throughout the world! When they have no other victims, they kill each other, in enormous numbers. If you wish to denounce mass murder and awful war crimes look no further than the Arab world globally.

A choice demonstration of you can't live with 'em and you can't live with 'em.

Kangaroo Court Kids - pack your bags and head back to Europe or cut the Kangaroo Court Kids Krap.

 

[BritinBritain]

Hold up, the walking dead is back. Someone put that wooden stake back for goodness sake

 

[MontyB]

Hold up, the walking dead is back. Someone put that wooden stake back for goodness sake

You understood some of that then?

Admittedly it is 5am here but it seemed rather a cryptic rant to me.

 

[VDKMS]

Good try VD but no better than your usual repeated lies, in that it has already been pointed out numerous times that none of this could occur because it would have contravened the primary ruling that no harm must come to the Palestinian people.

No harm was done to the Palestinian people until they started to attack the Jews and afterwards the British.

It is a matter of family history and no one cares whether you believe it. The very fact hat he and his family lived peaceably among his Arab neighbours is a pretty good indication that the land was not stolen. It was problems arising from the subsequent land grabs by militant Zionists that caused most of the family to come to Australia. I still have family in Israel and funnily enough I was invited to the wedding of one of my relatives with whom I am in regular contact, Sarah Moss to Yahoyda Be'eri at Kibbutz Ramat Rachel (Near Jerusalem) in 1999, my contacts are a lot closer than you think.

Most Jews lived peaceful among their Arab neighbours until the fanaticals started to attack the Jews. When someone attacks you, you defend yourself. If the attacks don't stop you go on the offensive.

And where is your verifiable truth? Only legal migrants were recognised. It is a recorded fact that the Brits were doing all in their power to limit legal immigration and stop the Illegal immigrants, not legalise them, hence the violent terror campaign by the Zionist terror groups. Your lies catch up with you at every turn.

here's the verifiable truth:

REPORT

by His Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to the Council of the League of
Nations on the Administration of

PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN FOR THE YEAR 1931

"2. Steps were taken to regularize the position of a large number of persons in Palestine who, having originally entered as travellers, or without permission, had succeeded in establishing themselves on a reasonably sound economic basis in the country and were completely absorbed into its economic life. This action was considered to be desirable on general grounds, and also in view of the possibility that the persons concerned would otherwise be deterred from registering at the Census by fear of prosecution for the offence of illegal presence in the country. "

Or this one:

REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN FOR THE YEAR 1925.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION, WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.

The subject of the thread is not about Arab migration it's about why Israel is hated. Other than which I have never read of any Palestinian resistance to the Arabs.

Yes my view is biased,... towards the truth.

Israel is hated by some of those Arab immigrants. Most "Palestinians" are of Arab descent, so their ancesters were immigrants. Clearly part of this thread.

No, biased toward your truth, which is based on opinion, not fact.

@MontyB : I think you should read more about the establishment of a Jewish National Home. (League of Nations, Official Journal, Geneva, November 1922, p. 1188. The purpose of this resolution was to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of the Jewish national home.) This clearly shows that Trans-Jordan used to be part of the Jewish National Home.) The word National implies that it was about a state wit a Jewish identity/citizenship. It was beyond the scope of the Mandate to give a name to the Jewish national Home. The Jews later have chosen "Israel" as its name.

 

[VDKMS]

Who's land is it?

The often cited sentence "They (the Palestinians) owned the land" is based on opinion and not fact.

Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” These
words are no less insightful today than they were when he wrote them in 1985. Despite our best efforts, we are all vulnerable to believing things without
using logic or having proper evidence—and it doesn’t matter how educated or well read we are. The above sentence is clearly one of them.

The notion of "I own the land" with the only prove that you live on it (found, bought, stolen, conquered,...) held ground up until about 200 years ago when the French started to registrate the owners and the ones living on the property. The Ottoman Turks copied the system in 1858. From then on, the notion "I own the land" had to be proven with a document of ownership. A lot of families didn't have that. The rich, living in Cairo, Beirut or Damascus, did. So, instead of "I own the land" it became "I live here but I don't own the land". Most lands were property of the Ottoman government, not the local population. Jews had a hard time buying land then but it could be done and was legal. After the Turks were defeated all the Ottoman governed land went over to the British Mandate. The titles of ownership given by the Ottoman government were valid in the British Mandate. Jews now could more easily legally buy new lands from Arab owners (local or not) and the British Mandate. Saying that the Jews stole the land is rubbish. Stealing land was forbidden, even in the Ottoman empire and surely after 1858, and could easily be exposed with every census because of the unavailability of a document of ownership. No matter the nationality of the buyer the property keeps being part of the country were it is resided. (Ottoman - Mandate - Israel).
Most of the cultivable land in British Palestine was controlled by roughly 250 Arab families. Over one-half of the land that the Jews purchased had been owned by Arabs who were not from Palestine. When Israel was founded, more than 70% of Israel used to be the Mandate's and reverted to Israel's as its legal heir just as Ottoman's owned land became legally the Mandate's.

The above explanation is based on logic and facts. If you keep saying "They owned the land" then you are fooling yourself.

 

[senojekips]

No harm was done to the Palestinian people until they started to attack the Jews and afterwards the British.

Most Jews lived peaceful among their Arab neighbours until the fanaticals started to attack the Jews. When someone attacks you, you defend yourself. If the attacks don't stop you go on the offensive.

.... etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. All previously answered a number of times.

The fact remains that the illegal immigrants had no claim to a land some their ancestors left over 1000 years previously as we have no claim to lands our ancestors left. They have even less right to beat harass and murder those who resist their illegal occupation. Remember it is the Israelis who have the world's longest list of UN resolutions against them, not the Palestinians who are legally resisting the theft of their land and possessions.

It was and still is recognised that the Palestinians did own the land as that was the reason that the clause was put in the Mandate, that whatever else happened "no harm should come to them".

 

[MontyB]

@MontyB : I think you should read more about the establishment of a Jewish National Home. (League of Nations, Official Journal, Geneva, November 1922, p. 1188. The purpose of this resolution was to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of the Jewish national home.) This clearly shows that Trans-Jordan used to be part of the Jewish National Home.) The word National implies that it was about a state wit a Jewish identity/citizenship. It was beyond the scope of the Mandate to give a name to the Jewish national Home. The Jews later have chosen "Israel" as its name.

And again you are mixing and matching your arguments, just because Trans-Jordan was excluded from the scope of the "Jewish national home" does not mean Palestine was exclusively set aside for Jews, I am sure that New Zealand and South Africa were probably left off the list as well all that the statement does is set the borders of Palestine at that of Trans-Jordan.

I have no doubt that the intention was for Jews to live in the area (they had been for centuries previous) as both "mandates" clearly imply that but both of them also point out that nothing that was to be done to implement that should affect rights or beliefs the existing non-Jewish population.

So explain to me how you can both build as you would claim a "Jewish" country and not affect the civil rights of the existing inhabitants of the land you want to build that country on?

Therefore it is my conclusion that what the mandate intended was a single nation made up of the inhabitants of the region respecting all religious groups present (much as most western nations do today) and as such the partitioning of Palestine was a reaction to "irreconcilable" differences not part of a grand plan to build Israel and not part of the British mandate.

but now we come to the crux of the matter I believe that the mandate was achievable until Palestine was flooded by European refugees who effectively invaded the place and created those "irreconcilable" differences.

 

[VDKMS]

.... etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. All previously answered a number of times.

The fact remains that the illegal immigrants had no claim to a land some their ancestors left over 1000 years previously as we have no claim to lands our ancestors left. They have even less right to beat harass and murder those who resist their illegal occupation. Remember it is the Israelis who have the world's longest list of UN resolutions against them, not the Palestinians who are legally resisting the theft of their land and possessions.

It was and still is recognised that the Palestinians did own the land as that was the reason that the clause was put in the Mandate, that whatever else happened "no harm should come to them".

You disregard all the facts and stubbornly stay with your wrong vision. When are you going to learn how land is transferred between states, governments and people? It's about borders, ownership, buying and selling and sometimes expropriate in order to serve the public (or corrupt politicians/businessmen). I gave you the facts who owned the region of Palestine. You are only fooling yourself.

And again you are mixing and matching your arguments, just because Trans-Jordan was excluded from the scope of the "Jewish national home" does not mean Palestine was exclusively set aside for Jews, I am sure that New Zealand and South Africa were probably left off the list as well all that the statement does is set the borders of Palestine at that of Trans-Jordan.

I have no doubt that the intention was for Jews to live in the area (they had been for centuries previous) as both "mandates" clearly imply that but both of them also point out that nothing that was to be done to implement that should affect rights or beliefs the existing non-Jewish population.

So explain to me how you can both build as you would claim a "Jewish" country and not affect the civil rights of the existing inhabitants of the land you want to build that country on?

Therefore it is my conclusion that what the mandate intended was a single nation made up of the inhabitants of the region respecting all religious groups present (much as most western nations do today) and as such the partitioning of Palestine was a reaction to "irreconcilable" differences not part of a grand plan to build Israel and not part of the British mandate.

but now we come to the crux of the matter I believe that the mandate was achievable until Palestine was flooded by European refugees who effectively invaded the place and created those "irreconcilable" differences.

I'm very happy with this mature view. The mandate was to create a Jewish national Home in what is now Israel, PA and Jordan (they called it reconstituting). It was the British who had to accomplish that. In the beginning they really tried their utmost best to achieve that. Letters and reports to the government prove that.
The following is my reasoning with the information I have. When the mandate started the British could not immediately give all the land to a few Jews. The mandate gave unlimited immigration to the Jews but it was not allowed to harm the people already living there. That's why the British tried to find a balance between immigration and the economy to support the increase of people. That went fairly well in the beginning. Some land in possession of the mandate (transfer from the Ottoman empire, completely legal in international law) was destined for acquirement by the Jews. The Arab leadership that fought alongside the British and the Jews against the Turks were happy with the arrival of the Jews but didn't want a Jewish state out of religious grounds. (replace Jews with Christians and it would have been the same).That was of course a major problem for the British because they needed the Arabs for the oil and the use of the Suez canal. Things got worse with the first (religious) attacks on the Jews. And it got worse and worse. Palestinians selling their land to Jews were killed by their fellow countrymen. The attacks on Jews increased and they started to defend themselves. In the beginning the British did whatever they could to protect the Jews but it became a nightmare. They also came under attack of the fanatical Palestinians and didn't want to be in the middle of that "war" and became reluctant to intervene. In the meantime they reduced the immigration, even sending away (deporting) ships full of refugees to the other side of the world to please the Arabs. This angered the Jews. Some of them were fed up with the defense and the failure to give them the promised Jewish state and started to go on the offensive. So we had everyone fighting against everyone. The British ended the mandate and left. The Jews declared independence on the land that was to be theirs according to the partition plan and the Arabs attacked with the intention to destroy it (infringement of international law). The attacks had nothing to do with the immigrants but with their religion, as said before. It also was to no help for the Palestinians for which the Arabs didn't care, propably because they didn't fight along them against the Ottoman Turks.
I also like to point you to the notion of "stealing the land". This had nothing to do with the ownership but all with the religious belief that non muslims are not to rule over muslim ground and that it is the duty of every muslim to do something about that (Jihad).

So explain to me how you can both build as you would claim a "Jewish" country and not affect the civil rights of the existing inhabitants of the land you want to build that country on?

Very simple. Universal laws. Constitutional equality. The British started to go into that direction adding the principles of the Anglo-Saxon system (which
is based on judicial precedents or case law) to the Ottoman laws. Israeli law is also based on that. Specific laws were enacted for some of the recognized religious communities including the Moslems, the Druze, the Jews, and the Christian communities (generally restricted to matters of marriage and divorce). This is religious freedom opposite to laws based on the Koran, which does not give religious freedom but religious tolerance at best.

 

[senojekips]

You disregard all the facts and stubbornly stay with your wrong vision. When are you going to learn how land is transferred between states, governments and people? It's about borders, ownership, buying and selling and sometimes expropriate in order to serve the public (or corrupt politicians/businessmen). I gave you the facts who owned the region of Palestine. You are only fooling yourself.

I merely disregard the "Zionist" version of the facts, (blatant lies and distortions), a habit carried on (very poorly) by it's exponents to this day and is constantly made apparent to the world at large, as they virtually always get caught out. One only has to follow the International media, and in many cases that of Israel to find evidence of this. e.g. the recent catching out of Bibi admitting that it was he who deliberately derailed peace talks not the Palestinians whom he has always blamed. Of course in recent times there was also the admission that it had had always been the plan to "Ghettoize" the Palestinian people. Regardless of anything you might say, the facts (as recognised by the International Community) will always cut the legs out from under your argument.

Israel's record of state sponsored murder, deceit and lies to the international community is so well documented, (and growing by the day) Their arrogance and ignorance would make the German Nazi party blush with envy.