Finally a crack in the wall and we see the light

I said "more land". the building sites are within the existing settlements. And yes, I believe the settlements are land theft.

 

It gave Jews a homeland there and political rights. The arabs were given Lebanon and Syria. Civil rights of Israeli citizens, whatever religion, were and still are honored. The San Remo Mandate held more validity than a UN resolution does because generally the UN resolutions are not legally binding. In fact the UN should not have even suggested dividing up the land that was given to the Jews in 1922 as their homeland.

 

No document or agreement ever said that ALL of Palestine would belong to only the Jews.

 

Actually Israel now occupies a lot less land than was originally given to them at San Remo. Israel was given land to the east of the Jordan river as well.

Just how much land (show us a map) do you think San Remo allotted to the Jews?

 

San Remo didn't give any specific land to the Jews.

It only stated within which lands they could settle and build a new homeland.

It is dishonest to claim that even one square inch of land in Palestine was given exclusively to the Jews.

 

If San Remo did not give any specific land,
but stated within which land the Jews could settle,
could you show a map of which land the Jews could settle please?

 

San Remo said that the Jews could settle in and make a homeland in Palestine.

In 1922 the League of Nations demarcated the areas where Jewish settlement would be allowed to make a homeland, in what is today called Palestine and not Transjordan.

However, San Remo states clearly that the political rights of non-Jews in those same areas were to be fully respected. That includes the rights of property owners.

 

Yes, thank you, but (for the second time) I would like to see the map which the League of Nations at San Remo demarcated to the Jews.

Where does it say the "political rights" of non-Jews were to be fully respected. Show me the part of the Mandate that states that please.

The civil and religious rights of the arabs as individuals were protected in the Mandate document,
but the national and collective rights and the collective political rights were concerned these were reserved exclusively for the Jewish people, because the arabs were given those same rights not in Palestine but in the neighboring countries and that is why today you have 21 arab states and one Jewish state.

 

NOTHING was given to the Jews at San Remo. It was a PROPOSAL and not codified into any law. You can blather about San Remo as long as you want but it no longer has any relevance. Furthermore the conference took place many years prior to the forming of the UN, the UN Charter and the ratification of the Geneva Conventions all of whose laws, rules and conditions Israel is a party to and continues to violate-including Resolution 242.

 

1) Legal? Care to give a reference in support?

2) What is your definition of genocide? Here is where I start from:

We could test that against documented and verifiable history. Dozens of references are provided here: [http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/313440-who-did-invading-borat.html]

 

MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!!! MYTH ALERT!!! This is a classic Zionist mantra. Repeat it often enough and the gullible and ignorant will believe it. Why do I call this a Myth?

Because Israel attacked, i.e. invaded Jordan in December 1966. Verifiable Fact. Aggressive - not defensive.
Because Israel invaded Syria in 1966/1967 and/or was responsible for the great majority of the border ceasefire violations. Verifiable Fact. Aggressive - not defensive
Israel struck Egypt first in June 1967 when Nasser was exploring ways to defuse the tension and after Israel had previously attacked nations with which Egypt had mutual defence agreements. Verfiable Fact. Aggressive - not defensive
Because Israel broke the ceasefire agreement with Hamas leading to the slaughter of 1400 Gazans in 2008/2009 versus 12 Israeli deaths. Note: 1400 versus 12, and Israel pulled the trigger. Defensive!!! There was no tunnel under Israeli soil - Borat tried to demonstrate this and failed abjectly. Verifiable fact

And those are just some of the examples. You can find many more here: [http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/313440-who-did-invading-borat.html] fully referenced for your convenience.

 

Wrong on all points. It was codified in Law.

The Leage of Nations was OBLIGED to settle and protect the Jews' right to the land and encourage settlement. These obligations were transferred to the UN.

You will need to watch this video which makes it perfectly clear. I would also recommend Howard Grief's Book called the Legal Foundations and Borders of Israel Under International Law.

[video=youtube;ubDhnM0MUmY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubDhnM0MUmY[/video]

- - - Updated - - -

You're kidding, right?

 

and the League of Nations was OBLIGED to protect the rights of non-Jews in that same land.

Jewish right to settle in west Palestine and build a homeland there was conditional upon the full respect for non-Jewish rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Syria attacked Israel during the Six Day War.

Jordan attacked Israel during the Six Day War.

- - - Updated - - -

its all in the 4th Geneva Conventions.

- - - Updated - - -

lol!!!

The preamble of the mandate document declared:


Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

 

About Israel having instigated many of the major conflicts in the ME? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

But thank you for providing this illuminating example of how ingrained the Zionist Mantras are; in the case the Mantra that Israel embarked on Defensive wars, or as HBendor put it, "Israel does not attack; Israel retaliates" or words to that effect.

Facts and logic do little to dent the bastion of Zionist innocence. That monolithic solidity is based on two key requirements: 1) To keep the general public ignorant of the real details, and 2) to repeat the contrary position that Israel is the good guy and that Palestine is the evil one. Repetition seems to be a powerful tool, hence my use of the term "mantra".

Now that we know how the distortions of historical fact have cemented the view of most Westerners (yourself included, demonstrated by the fact that you appear to have taken almost no time or effort to evaluate my claim, and rely instead on an one-liner as a response, devoid of all factual content - in fact consisting of 3 words), I am not at all surprised by your ?rebuttal?.
--------------------------------

If you are brave and intellectual enough, I encourage you to test yourself. What better test than to take the last of the three items that you responded to, namely the event which led to Operation Cast Lead in late-2008. I provide you with three theses below and invite you to pick holes in them:

1) A ceasefire was arranged by Egypt on 19 June 2008 to stop an on-going conflict between Israel and Hamas which dated back to Israel's acts to subvert the implementation of the 2006 PA elections that were held to be free and fair by most international analysts. In particular the conflict arose, not by Israel's undemocratic act (with US support), but to a blockade that it imposed on Gaza in June 2007. And in fact Hamas did not start to retaliate until attempts to have the sanctions reversed failed, and they started to impact significantly on the people of Gaza.

2) A few rebel groups in Gaza continued firing rockets at Israel after the ceasefire was implemented. They were disciplined by Hamas. As a result rocket fire on Israel plummeted to a few single percent of the pre-June 2008 levels. Here is a graphic based on IDF data to illustrate this vividly, the lowest since September 2000, an average drop of 97.5% compared to previous months, reaching over 99% as Hamas policing took full effect . Since July 2008 not a single Israeli had been injured:


Hamas had complied. Israel however failed to respond in equal measure to her obligations to ease the sanctions with only a 25% increase in commercial goods flow compared to early 2007 levels. Yet Hamas did not revert to conflict. In fact its control on barrages on Israel became even more effective. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised Hamas. Yet Israel continued to fire on Gaza.

3) Then on 4 November 2008 Israel invaded Gaza and killed 6 Palestinians, a clear and grave violation of the ceasefire. From that point on conflicts escalated, culminating in Operation Cast Lead and the death of over 1400 Palestinians. Israel claimed that the 4 November attack was because a tunnel was being dug from Palestine to below Israel with a view to kidnapping IDF soldiers. Not a single shred of evidence was produced. Evaluation by a US civil rights group found the “tunnel” to be typical of the underground defensive bunkers that are common throughout Gaza and was solely within Gaza territory.

Other than for the graphic, I write the above from memory, so I might have a few dates wrong. I see 2006 to December 2008 as a classic example of Israeli aggression and when the inevitable retaliations begin, to claim that it is evil Hamas who was responsible for the conflict. This pattern was perfectly repeated in 2012. You claim that I am “joking”. Please explain via a critique of the above, or is your faith enough?

 

I took your advice. I watched it. All of it. In detail. So let us start:

Response: Hey, this video is starting well. So far so good.

Response 1: That is not true. In fact it puts the spin on it that the Jewish people were responsible for the “reconstitution of their national home”. What the Mandate in fact says is that “the Mandatory (Britain) should be responsible for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp Britain was responsible, not the Jewish people. As you noted, BroadwayBaby, it is "perfectly clear"

Response 2: I suspect that we have just experienced the first slice off the salami on the way to a ‘sanitised’ version of history.

I wonder what more Kosher cosmetic butchery awaits us, BroadwayBaby.

Did you spot Gold’s distortion of recorded history?

…. * to be continued* …

 

Which they did

 

Nothing different. Britain was responsible to bring the Jews back home, to their homeland. The League of Nations voted for it. It is protected in Law.

 

not since 1948.

since then, they have been violating non-Jewish rights on a daily basis.

 

Rocco says the mandate is not international law. I also disagree with him.

But that was not the purpose of your video clip posting, which was to ‘prove’ the Jews’ right to the land. You posted a video clip as evidence. I am critiquing your evidence.

…. Continued …
[video=youtube;ubDhnM0MUmY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubDhnM0MUmY[/video]
So far we have seen that Dore Gold inserted that it was the right of the Jews to reconstitute their national home, whereas the law (the Mandate) clearly stated that this was Britain’s exclusive right. First salami slice. The sausage is no longer whole. Let us continue:

@5:27 Dr Jacques Gauthier seemingly states (or is it clever editing?): “I want to underlinethat the primary objective for the Mandate for Palestine was to grant political rights in respect to Palestine to the Jewish people. He fails to explain WHAT these rights are and we are left with the impression that it is full political control, which of course is totally in conflict with the wording of the Mandate.

The second slice has been carved out of the full truth of the salami.

@ 5:37 Howard Grieff states: “Insofar as the national and collective … political rights were concerned, these were reserved exclusively for the Jewish people .. “

The man is just so obviously a charlatan and a liar. The Mandate approved by the League of nations says nothing remotely like this; in fact it states just the opposite. as any honest reader can verify here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

My conclusion is 100% fully confirmed by a post earlier in this thread where Rocco provided an excerpt from the 1922 British White paper in which His Majesty's Government made it abundantly clear that there was absolutely no intention to create a Jewish state out of Palestine.

MYTH BUSTED!!!!

Grieff has been unmasked. He may be a lawyer but he is a lying lawyer.

… (to be continued) …

 

Israel violates non-Jewish rights on a daily basis? Please explain.

 

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

 

I have to keep explaining this. Jew can refer to two things. 1) one who follows the religion of judaism 2) a person of jewish ancestry, meaning a descendant of the ancient judeans and/or israelites, basically, a hebrew. Check the dictionary it backs up what I say. I will show you:

Jew:
noun
1. one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite.
2. a person whose religion is Judaism.
3. a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jew?s=t

European Jews were ironically labeled as 'palestinians' by the european emmanuel kant, because that is their origin. Did they pick up european genes and customs? Sure. But the same is the case with African Americans who speak english and have european dna mixed with african. European Jews were hated in Europe for being darker skinned on average and for belonging to a semitic culture and tradition. Their ancestors were semites from eretz yisrael/canaan/palestine (a roman name ironically referring to the phillistines who are not native the region. They also have ancestry from Babylon, modern day Iraq. Some european jews have more european dna, others have more near eastern dna. But simpling living in an area does not transform you into the host population of that area. European jews were isolated, living in ghettos, at least in eastern europe for centuries. The overhwhelming majority of genetic studies point to a near eastern origiin, specifically the fertile crescent and northern surrounding areas. European jews spoke languages mixed german and spanish mixed with hebrew and aramaic. They read in hebrew and aramaic, prayed in these semitic languages, and yes some could even speak Hebrew or write letters in it for communication purposes with other jewish communites around the world who belonged to a non-european culture. Roma, another dark skinned people also have non-european origins, they come from Inida however picked up european dna just like the jews.

'Palestine' had a jewish community that never left, now they call themselves Israelis. Palestine was a regional name like the Transjordan or Mesopotamia. It wasn't a state, ever. It was controlled by the arabs, then by the ottoman turks, then by the british. There are no such thing as 'palestinian jews' today, they identify with their nationality, israeli. Palestine has had so much mixing of different immigrants its hard to even define who is or was one.

There are native Israeli jews that identify as palestinian, because they know there is no such thing. They are Israeli.

 

I meant to say there are no native Israeli Jews that identify as 'palestinian jews', because there is no such thing (at least not anymore). Before palestine there was Israel, and after palestine there is Israel. They are Israeli Jews who have never left eretz yisrael, the holy land. Many Israeli jews today (like my dad for instance) have ancestry that descend from these native jews who never left the cities of Jerusalem or Safed among others (although my dad is mostly baghdadi and also a little kurdish jewish). Some european jews have lived in palestine, or as they called it 'eretz yisrael' for centuries. Most of these are sefaradim who were expelled frome Europe (spain and portgual) and the older generation speaks ladino still today, although some also knew arabic and they all speak hebrew and ladino now. Yitzhak Navon is a perfect example. Is he any less 'palestinian' than an arab simply because his ancestors spoke ladino and lived in Europe centuries before returning?

Born in Jerusalem, Navon is a descendant of a Sephardi family of rabbis. On his father's side, he is descended from Spanish Jews who settled in Turkey after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492. The family (Baruch Mizrahi family or Al Mashraki) moved to Jerusalem in 1670. On his mother's side, he is descended from the renowned kabbalist Haim Ben-Attar. The Ben-Attar family came from Morocco to Jerusalem in 1884.[2]



He looks no different than ashkenazi jews. And some ashkenazi jews also settled in Palestine or eretz yisrael prior to modern zionism (which was also a sefaradi movement). Are they less palestinian than the european sefaradim? They were born in palestine and some families lived there for over 100 years.

 

lol - more zionist propaganda.
the Ashkenazi and North African Jews look white and North African because they are white and North African.
there is no way these Jews are related to the Israelities - no way.
even if they were 10% related, it doesn't justify occupation.
the Israelities never left much past Judeah - there is no evidence of a mass diaspora into North Africa and Europe.
please show me this evidence.