Palestinians are immigrants – what happens when the Hasbara starts to unravel

I agree. I extend it not just to “all” Palestinians, but even to “the majority of modern Palestinians”.

This claim was torn to shreds here:

How do we fit the "almost 1 million" into that progression?

Do you think that first quote fits your description, Jonsa?

How about this one?:
http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...runner-show-comes-town-36.html#post1061800708

Remember that the 1893 Ottoman census put the Arab population of Palestine at around 500 000. Something is clearly very squiff.
I believe that this is where HB got his “evidence” – from another “expert”, of course (click for source):

500 000 dropped to 5000 in 20 years!!?? Do you believe that, Jonsa? It certainly does not fit your claim (references please - you do understand the reason, don't you?) that there was a big influx of Arabs in the early 20thC. The Hasbara is clashing!!!!
HB should have taken Erkine Childer’s advice.

But there is more Hasbara, Jonsa, or as you called its proponents “seriously ignorant or just terrible liars”:
http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/154844-beggars-cannot-choosers-3.html#post3051123

The unravelling of the Myths is snow-balling. The more honest Zionists are seeing the light. The dissent is building.

 

Here's an up-to-the-minute example.

Note the wealth of evidence provided in support of "Palestinians are Immigrants" (not).

FACTS are unraveling the myriad of Zionist MYTHS.

The truth is starting to dawn .... on some of them. They are concerned about the lack of evidence to support their "standard version" while an avalanche of data refuting them keeps on appearing on Political Forum.

For others, the Isaiah 42:20 syndrome remains solidly in place.

 

The more these absurd myths are exposed the more threadbare and transparent they become. We can add to that myth the constant braying from the hasbara donkeys that "tiny" (note the emotional appeal to the diminutive), Israel is surrounded by millions of Muslims all desperate to flush it into the sea. Then we get the risible 'historical right' nonsense- (I should give my house keys to some random foreigner because his nation invaded mine a thousand years ago...?)

Fortunately the internet has become the arch-enemy of Zionist Israelis; facts and figures are easily found in response to hasbara lies and myths, and can be disseminated to anyone with an open and questioning mind. The recent rise in the number of hasbara apparatchiks is clear evidence that Israel is desperate to hide its criminal activities behind a veil of propaganda. 'Look over there' is a classic diversionary attempt.
It isn't working.

 

Your BS hatred propaganda is not working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmAxrdgiJP4

 

Israeli Myths & Propaganda. Its long but thorough -

[video=youtube;sIWvcBzbqVc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIWvcBzbqVc[/video]

Myth #1: The Jews were there first
----

Not so :


"The Canaanites were there before the Hebrews came in 1800 B.C. The present-day Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites, Arabs, and others.

The Jewish Kingdoms were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine,
and endured (lasted ) for only 73 years.

(Source: “Their Promised Land”, Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright / “Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan”, Illene Beatty )

....

 

Let us see how much and how fast we can trash the Hasbara and add to the avalanche against the MYTHS.

1) Right at the start (00:36) Horowitz claims that Hezbollah would like the Jews to gather in Israel so that it didn’t have to hunt them down. He obviously does not believe in checking the truth of the Hasbara - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Nasrallah

MGB’s defence would typically be of a very intellectual nature – “Glass is an islamo-fascist”.

There is more. To copy MGB’s C&P technique in miniature - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi7TrkRuRJc

So the very first – numero uno – claim by Horowitz can be trashed. If an “expert” can be trashed so easily ….oy vey!!, what hope has the unsophisticated Hasbara?

2) Let us continue. Ar 02:35 the usual “rockets raining down on Israel” turd is polished and presented on a silver platter. But over the past 2 years this forum has been demonstrating, using facts from impeccable sources such as UN observer teams, international media sources, and even official IDF and other Government sites, that the clear majority of cases heavy rocket attacks on Israel were preceded by Israeli aggressions. Clear examples were in early 1967 on the Syrian border; the Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon which preceded any PLO rocket fire into northern Israel; the 2006-2008 debacle in Gaza, and the crystal clear cases of Israeli assassinations in 2012.

Take a look at the stunned mullets when media facts are produced combined with IDF records which show that the 2012 “raining down of rockets on Israel” were all preceded by Israeli aggressions a day or two before.

The Hasbara tries to sweep these facts under the carpet by mindless repetitions on “Israel never attacks; Israel only responds”.

It isn’t working any more. The Hasbara MYTHS are unravelling.

Because we all know – ALL OF US – that the UN observers are not anti-Semitic racists. The Israeli government sources are not Islamo-fascists. The Israeli historiographic archive analysts do not hate Jews. These are pathetic Hasbara excuses.

Next on MGB’s Video clip…. The Wall of Lies

…. (to be continued) ….

 

How pure is your anecdotal/laughable post above, how pure is the Muslim Cult? Could you elaborate a little on the above scatology?

 

FACTS will set you free, HB.
Folk will slowly start to take you seriously again.

Please read your last post to see just how *CLANG* empty you have become.

 

I am not empty I am reacting to your <RACIST REMARQ> of How pure are the Jews OP?

Your are used to defame because no one confronts you... How pure the Jews? (I am not even a religious man) They are purer than the cult you genuflect to, much more pure than a pretender who went to heaven on a winged animal and has 1 billion <airheads> as followers.

 

Your quiver is clearly empty.

How about providing some facts to support your mantra that the Palestinians are recent immigrants.

So confront me. Show us that my math regarding the progression of the Palestinian population in the 1940s was wrong, and that we can easily fit in YOUR 1 million squatters.

If not ... left stage is there (points)

Your MYTHS are unraveling; yours are being shown to be *CLANG* empty of ANY credibility.

 

Yes of course... We Arians was in Russia 8000 to 12000 years ago when earth was empty of people, then some of us had gone to Iran and then India, Some ramained in current russia and some other gone to current Germany....

World is for us and we can invade anywhere named above...

The interesting thing about Palestinians is that they are the same race and color of Israelites who gone along Moses (PBUH), Just they converted to Christianity and then Islam, And in the Zionism Fundamentals , This conversion seems to be crime and exitting the race and brotherhood. People are people , as they are Jew-Neo-Zionists! And in moden age we should collect any remained jew to fight the source land that our previous brothers still living in it.

 

........ (continued) ..........

=== The Wall of Lies ===

Let us see how much is lies, how much can be verified, and how much of the remaining video commentary contains strawman deflections. Before you read on, please not that sensitive viewers might be disturbed that HGB will call the following facts &#8220;BS hatred&#8221;:

04:05: &#8220;The first panel purports to represent the State of Palestine in 1946. This is a LIE.&#8221;. Let&#8217;s check.
Why the use of the complicated verb &#8220;purports&#8221;? The reason is that the commentator needs to insert a strawman and then to argue with it. These are the FACTS (note, not &#8216;BS Hatred Propaganda&#8217;, but FACTS!!):
a) There is no mention of Palestine on the 1946 panel. The commentator has LIEd. [Note the &#8216;clever&#8217; use of a sliding black curtain entering from the right to avoid comparisons]
b) There is no mention of the word &#8220;State&#8221; on any of the four panels. The commentator has LIEd again.

04:45: &#8220;The British victors administered the Mandate and promised it to the Jews&#8221; &#8211; LIE - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp

05:00: &#8220;In 1922 the British reneged on their promise&#8221; &#8211; LIE a) It was never promised to the Jews &#8211; see above. b) The British were authorised to make changes to the area between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of the mandate area, i.e. to Trans-Jordan &#8211; see Article 25 here - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

05:30: &#8220;Filistin was not Arab&#8221;; implying that Palestine was not occupied by the Philistines, laters the Jews who are now the Palestinians. &#8211; False Logic!!

06:07: &#8220;But there is no movement in the Middle East or on American campuses to liberate the Palestinian Arabs of Jordan from Hashemite rule&#8221; &#8221; &#8211; LIE Of course there is. There is massive support for the right of these people to return to their ancestral homes and thus be liberated from the Hashemites.

06:40 &#8220;(The Arabs) did not want a Palestinian state&#8221; &#8211; LIE The Arabs objected, amongst others to the PARTITION of the Palestinian state. That is something VERY different.

07:43 &#8220;(The conflict) becan as an Arab war&#8221;. &#8211; LIE The implication is that the 1948/49 war began as an attack by all Arabs. Not so. It began as a civil war by the ancestral inhabitants of the southern Levant against their disenfranchisement from their mother land.

As could be predicted, the final riposte is to play the Holocaust card.

So, other than some quotations from some long-irrelevant radicals, this video of a necklace of lies.

REJECTED!! I wonder how much it cost to produce that garbage.

The point stands unrefuted: &#8220;the internet has become the arch-enemy of Zionist Israelis; facts and figures are easily found in response to hasbara lies and myths&#8221; We can add to that that it also provides wonderful opportunities to critique the purveyors of Hasbara lies.

The MYTHS are unravelling by the minute

 

If you guys wish to remain in the thread, focus your attention on the topic, not each other. ~

 

Whatever you have mentioned is not an authoritative comment... This is just a personal reaction by the respondent, I tend to agree with the clip. I will retort to each of the vacuous statements soon.

 

The British promise of Palestine as homeland was made to German and British Zionists in 1917 as reward for drawing the USA into WWI. It was published in the so called "Balfour Declaration". Palestine at the time being belonged to the Ottoman Empire. That is as if Switzerland would promise Scotland to China as reward for helping in the conflict between Japan and Korea. To cover up the scam the German Zionist and foreign secretary Arthur Zimmerann sent his famous bogus "Zimmermann telegram" to the German Embassy in Washington D.C. The allegedly deciphered clear text version of the telegram was handed to President Woodrow Wilson by Lord Balfour. Wilson immediately declared war against Germany. That is the true cause of the so called German "stab in the back legend" which was the spark which ignited Adolf Hitler and German anti semitism. For the Germans it meant the Versailles catastrophy and WWII. The British Governemnt founded the League of Nations and immediately that League of Nations awarded the Mandate over Palestine back to the British Empire. The Balfour declaration (authors: Chaim Weizmann/Lord Balfour/President Wilson) was integrated into the preamble of the Mandate contract. Vice chief of the British "Versailles Treaty" commission: Lord Balfour. Chief of the "League of Nations Reparations Commission: Lord Balfour. Because the Versailles Treaty had been enforced by a genocide on 900.000 German civilains AFTER the signature of the armistice on Nov. 11th, 1918, it was invalid. Therefore US congress did not ratify the so called treaty. Because of the League of Nation's conduct was against international law, the USA also did not join the League of Nations in 1919. Until today to the "stupid common people" the sinking of the Lusitania is sold as the reason for the US entry into WWI. That however was in May 1915 and was irrelevant in April 1917, when the USA entered.
That all is based on international law. The "right of return" is religious law, which is interesting but does not count.
One good reference in the link below.
http://www.bearcanada.com/fae/israel/benjaminfreedmanspeech.html

 

Rambling.

 

There is another problem: The Website FailedMessiah.com on December 29th, 2012 wrote, quote:

New Study Shows Yeshiva University Researcher, Others Appear To Have Cooked The Genetic Books To &#8216;Prove' Middle Eastern Origin Of The Jewish People When One May Not Really Exist... Elhaik says that among the various groupings of European and non-European Jews there is no common genetic origin.
"The various groups of Jews in the world today do not share a common genetic origin. We are talking here about groups that are very heterogeneous and which are connected solely by religion&#8230;[the] genome of European Jews is a mosaic of ancient peoples and its origin is largely Khazar,&#8221; he told Ha&#8217;aretz
End of quote

That would mean that not the Palestinians are imigrants to Palestine. Whatever the situation is, it does not say to make someone leave the place. It simply says that the present situation cannot be based on religious but must be based on more profane laws. In addition it is not necessary to further heat up the spiral of hate, in particular not with bogus scientific arguments. Instead some solution everybody can live with would make much sense.


The study above can be found in multiple places. The link from which I have quoted:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fa...enetic-books-to-prove-middle-eastern-789.html

 

Many thanks for providing a quote that fully confirms the sundering of one of the main Zionist MYTHS, HB, and for adding colour to it.

I told you that FACTS would set you free, HB. You have now found some facts. But you have yet to take the next compulsory step, namely to read those facts and to interpret them as any reasonable person familiar with the English language would. Let me try to help you take this second painful step.

1) What does the League of Nations say about the whereabouts of this national Jewish home?

It says that it will be in PALESTINE. Not in southern Syria, but in Palestine. I did not make that up. It is there in your own quote.

2) Did it say the "establishment of a sovereign Jewish country" or perhaps the "establishment of a Zionist State"? Please check. I don't want to mislead you.

No, it didn't. Instead it said a "National homeland for the Jewish people". The words "sovereign" and "Country" are not used anywhere to describe the "national Jewish home". The word "State" appears nowhere. Got that? Now you need to register that because you repeat the same confusion every month or two.

3) So, did the League of Nations make a one-off mistake, and insert "homeland" when they meant "State"?

No, it was no mistake. The word "home" or "homeland" appears 5 times in the Mandate document. It was no mistake. They did not mean "state" or "country".

4) Are we sure? Maybe it was a repetitive mistake?

Yes, we are sure. In the 1922 British (Churchill) White paper [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp] the point is made in words of one sylable that a sovereign Jewish country or State was NOT intended. Let us check:

# "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine";

# "His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view";

# "Nor have they at any time contemplated ... the subordination of the Arabic population ... in Palestine";

# "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"

# "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"";

5) Yes, but might it still not mean that the Jews are intended to have CONTROL of this country; to govern it, to determine who might live where, and to expel people while exercising their right to reconstitute their homeland.

No it doesn't. Your evidence confirms this:

# "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine


The White Paper further confirms further no Jewish control of government, thus emphasising yet again that a "sovereign Jewish State" was not intended:

# " the Zionist Commission in Palestine ... has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country";

# "but does not entitle it (the ZCR) to share in any degree in its government"

So what IS this homeland within Palestine if it is not a Jewish-controlled State or country? The White Paper explains:

# “When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community …. in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.

If you have any reason to continue to maintain that the Balfour declaration, the San Remo conference, the Treaty of Sevres or the Mandate for Palestine intended an independent and sovereign Jewish state implanted in the country of Palestine, please provide the FACTS.

 

Exactly

Glad you agree

FACTS form sound rebuttal, HB. POVs are low quality debate.

Since you did not dispute my statement, but served up yet another deflection, can I take it that you agree with it.

*SIGH*

 

Refuting requires FACTS. There was only 1 from HB (the LoN quote) that was not a Strawman.

FACTS then require logic and respect, not weaseling - such as "homeland" = "State".

Isaiah 42:20

FAILED, HB.

The Hasbara MYTHs are being trashed; they are unraveling by the day

 

You would not know the difference if it would hit your big toe with a ton of bricks.
No one here but the insanity of an obdurate, brainwashed individual can oppose facts and yet calls them Myths.

Debate is not cherry picking it is open, lucid, straight and to the point.
The people who write Laws i.e. Eugene Rostow are not writing for Israel nor the Arabs they write to clarify and nothing else.

90 % of what you call Myths are Real... live with it... or make your Erskine your god. Here is why...


I finally got hold of some documents written by Dr. Paul S. Riebenfeld a teacher, a person that I admire and respect&#8230;, he is a political scientist and an international lawyer, and until recently Professor of Political Science at Touro College in New York. Has been a member of the Executive Committee of the Zionist Organization of America since 1953. From 1937 to 1939 he was a Zionist representative to the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, and from 1943 to 1952 he was a member of the Palestine Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the representative body of British Jewry. He is the Director of the Center for Near East Policy Research, and Chairman of the Policy Committee of Jordan-Is-Palestine International.

I will try to post some of them for those that have been following closely the process of &#8220;rapprochement&#8221; attempted between two peoples of different background and aspirations.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
SECOND SESSION
Thursday, April 29, 1971, at 2:15 P.m.
Panel: Self-determination and Settlement of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Chairman: Charles W. Yost

Dr. Paul Riebenfeld. I just spent two years in Geneva researching the Palestine Mandate in the archives of the League of Nations. Still, I will refrain from history except to remind you, since we are speaking of self-determination, of Rudolf Stammler&#8217;s thought that there is in international law something like a higher norm which from time to time, in accordance with changing values, dominates the historical and legal process. For instance, during the last ten years the concept of &#8220;decolonialization&#8221; can be said to have represented such a higher norm. Now, with reference to the Palestine Mandate, it must be remembered that it was &#8220;self-determination&#8221; which pervaded the work of the League of Nations since Wilson. And I would say, as stated by President Truman in his memoirs, and by others, that it was the idea of self-determination that induced President Wilson to support Zionism. It seemed only just that the Jewish people, too, should be enabled to restore its independent national existence, and to do so in its ancient homeland which, under Arab and Turkish rule, had simply been the southern part of Syria, without distinct identity. &#8216; It was the idea of self-determination which finally resulted in one Jewish state and, so far, fourteen Arab states being represented in the United Nations.

But I wish to address myself to the present situation, and here also I should like to start with some facts. The last Jordanian census taken in November, 1961, showed a total population of 1,640,039 citizens, of whom 1,355,450 were described as of Palestinian origin. Of these, 805,450 lived in Cisjordan, the West Bank, while 550,000 lived in Transjordan. The number of citizens of Transjordan birth was 284,589, and there were also, on the census day, 53,000 Nomads in the country. The Palestinian Arabs represented approximately 83 percent of the total settled population of Jordan. Now I cannot imagine that even Professor Bassiouni, in advocating his proposed solution has in mind that King Hussein would send more than three quarters of the population of Jordan out of the country and that he, or for that matter the U.S. Government, would want to see a Jordanian state of about 350,000 people. Is it not true that the advocacy of the Palestinian cause as formulated is aimed at maintaining the thrust against Israel, which would be lost if the reality were faced that the Palestinians have a country of their own in which to exercise self-determination?

And furthermore, Jordan is not a foreign country. This brings me to another fact which seems badly misunderstood. It is not true that with the occupation of the West Bank in 1967 the Israelis occupied the whole of the Mandate territory of Palestine, for Transjordan, too, was a part of Palestine, in history as well as under the Mandate. And it was part of Palestine, not until 1922, as is so often stated, but until May, 1946, when the British made it independent, nine months before they submitted the rump mandate to the United Nations for adjudication.

All that happened in 1922 was the suspension under Article 25 of the Jewish National Home provisions &#8220;in the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine&#8221; and the institution of a local Arab administration in what the relevant files of the League of Nations describes as &#8216;the transjordanian province of Palestine.&#8221; As King Abdullah wrote in his memoirs: &#8216;In 1922 we were separated from the Balfour Declaration.&#8221; But this did not mean being separated from Palestine as far as the Palestinian Arabs were concerned. Unlike the situation regarding Syria and Lebanon, which were constituted as two separate mandate territories, Transjordan remained under the Palestine Mandate and was administered under the authority of the High Commissioner in Jerusalem. Transjordanians traveled on Palestine passports and Palestinian was their nationality under international law. No obstacle prevented free movement of Arabs between Cis- and Transjordan, and many Transjordanians either seasonally or permanently settled and worked in places like Haifa, Jaffa, or Jerusalem. The exclusion of Zionist colonization and the delegation of certain administrative powers to the Amir Abdullah had among its effects not that of separating Transjordan from Palestine, but that of securing its Arab character, its Palestinian Arab character, if you wish. It was on the unity of the country on both sides of the Jordan that King Abdullah later based the annexation of the West Bank.

Looking at these facts, can it really be suggested that the Palestinians who are today in Jordan are the guests of a separate host nation which consists of Transjordanians; that the Palestinians are no more at home in Jordan than they are, for instance, in Egypt or Lebanon? Last November Le Monde carried a speech by Yasser Arafat in which he said that the Palestinians consider both sides of the Jordan as their country, that those who would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank territory only were &#8216;the running dogs of the&#8217; counter-revolution,&#8217; and that the Palestinians would not cede their claim to Transjordan as part of Palestine.

Regarding that proposal of a West Bank state for the Palestinians I myself cannot understand anybody with a sense of realism and a feeling for political atmosphere advocating such a step. For any foe of Israel the resulting map would certainly provide a potent visual aid for the purpose of anti-Zionist propaganda. There would be that long strip of Israel eighty percent of Cisjordan, occupied by the Jews, and there would be shown this tiny bit of insert, twenty percent of Cisjordan, left to the Palestinians. -The truth, however is that even today, with the West Bank in Israeli possession, eighty percent of the area of Palestine belongs to and is occupied by the Arabs of Palestine. This truth has to be made visible in any settlement if the unjust myth is to disappear that the Palestinians have been robbed of their country and driven into foreign host countries,

Being the great majority in Jordan, and talking of self-determination and democratic principles to be introduced in the future, what is it that stands in the way of affirming the Palestinian character of Jordan, of the Palestinians voting themselves into power? We, as Americans, have an interest that this should be done in an orderly way, under a responsible leadership, and that King Hussein, being really the King of the Palestinians, and of eighty percent of Palestine, should face the needs of reality. Instead of being one of the causes of continuing strife, he should work toward a peaceful solution between Israel and Jordan which should also embrace the issue of Palestinian self-determination. Here is a task for statesmanship and one which international law can help to clarify.

Professor Bassiouni. I attempted to formulate some guidelines for what the word &#8220;people&#8221; means, and to find a connection between people and territory, in an attempt to define the existence of a necessary link between a given people and a given territory on which they can exercise this right of self-determination.
I can see three different stages that have developed in the post-1947 period: Stage one is 1948 to 1969, where the United Nations looked upon the Palestinians merely as refugees. That started with Resolution 194 (194, wherein the refugees -were given a right to return in peace to their territory which bad been allotted to the state of Israel. It remained that way until 1969. Even in 1967 after that war, Resolution 242, paragraph 2, stated: &#8220;affirms further the necessity of achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.&#8221; Until 1967 the Palestinian people rated just one line in that resolution and that one line still referred to them as refugees. Stage two started in 1969, when the United Nations General Assembly recognized that we are now dealing with a: &#8220;people&#8221; and recognized for the first time that they are the primary parties to the conflict. I might emphasize that they are the central issue of the conflict, not the surrounding Arab states which also have a different conflict with Israel. Theirs is a territorial war predicated on an ideological conflict. That was finally recognized in 1969. Stage three was in 1970 -when the United Nations, based on the recognition of stage two, stated: &#8220;recognizing the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, further affirms that no peaceful solution can be made other than on the basis of self-determination.&#8217;

Now that we have determined that there is a people called the Palestinian people, we must define their territory and the link that must exist between the people and that territory. We cannot ignore, however, the conflict between that people and another people called Israelis concerning that identical territory. Can we proffer some equitable formula to balance. the rights of those two collectivities on that same territory? There are several ways to consider the question. One approach was the United Nations in 1947, to make an arbitrary division of the land, a sort of a Solomonian justice that, if you cannot determine the mother of the baby, split the baby in two; thus. allotting part of Palestine to the prospective Jewish state and part of it to the prospective Palestinian state. Another approach is to find for the Palestinian people an entity-a state other than Palestine so that there is no more question about their claims to statehood. So we alternate between such proposals as trust territories, as Professor Reisman suggested; a binational commonwealth, as Professor Gottlieb suggested; the establishment of a separate Palestine, state on the West Bank; or, as Dr. Riebenfeld suggested, the transformation of Jordan into a Palestinian state. Well, that is all fine and well, but to some extent I feel also bound by the limitations of my discipline, which is the legal discipline, and I have to find some legal framework. As such, I must conclude that: If we have a defined people and we have a defined territory and recognize the existence of an established right, then should not that established right be applicable to those people on that territory? And that is why I propose that we might look at Palestine at the time it was Palestine, prior to its demographic transformation which was imposed from the outside.

Dr. Riebenfeld. Certainly you will not deny that at that time, before and until 1922, Trans-Jordan was part of Palestine. No one has ever denied this fact.

Professor Bassiouni. The point I am trying to make is that if we choose the territory as it was constituted as a national entity, the people as constituted and part of that entity, this would be the framework within which I would operate. The only caveat I would add is whether or not there is a possibility of developing within Israel those social, economic, and political structures that would allow for the peaceful co-existence of the two collectivities, to pursue their divergent ideologies. I can see no better way for accomplishing that than by the establishment of a secular, democratic state where both collectivities would be afforded constitutional rights as in any other pluralistic society.

Professor Richard Arens.. I am quite willing to view the concept of self-determination in a broadly political, as well as a legal, context. What concerns me about self-determination is the specific meaning one attaches to it. Self-determination to Sudetan Germans meant death to Czechoslovakia. I am concerned about how this particular concept will be applied by spokesmen of the Palestinian Arabs, notably Yasser Arafat, whom I have listened to and believed, and who is a proponent. of genocidal warfare. Professor Bassiouni suggested changes in the internal structure of Israel to accommodate the Arabs. What assurances do we have, in the light of Arab belligerent practices, both within Palestine and Israel, into which incursions involving attacks on the civilian populations were made in great numbers.

 

What you have provided us herewith are simply opinions. What you have been provided with are facts from the very same sources which you have used to prop-up your failed argument.
We deal in fact, you deal in opinion. Guess which has more credibility?

Sorry but dropping in a cut and paste from a Zionist source isn't remotely credible as impartial commentary.

 

Exactly you and Klip have also forwarded your opinions or pasted stupidity from so called (I think) biased sources as facts.

At least I am posting Rostow, Riebenfeld, Bassiouni, Mudar Zahran (2 x Arabs and two Jews) who are in high positions in International Law, well educated, titled and you and the ubiquitous Klip post you own inner feelings as facts because you and him have Arab friends... (not enough as impartial commentary)
Rostow as irrelevant?????????????? Come on.

 

So Rostow is you new "expert". I hope he is better thatn the previous 5 who failed so spectacularly to shore up their MYTH that the Zionists were promised a Jewish state over all of Mandate Palestine. Especially Grieff ... who presented lie after lie; distortion after distortion. His position was compared to verbatim quotes from the relevant documents, and you call that "opinions" or "pasted stupidity" without presenting a single on-topic fact in rebuttal.

But in addition, I cannot find anything by Rostow in this thread. The only place where your reference to him could be located is in a post deleted for being off-topic. Is that where it was?